YOUNGSTOWN S. & T. CO. v. Rev. Bd., ESD
Citation | 116 N.E.2d 650,124 Ind. App. 273 |
Decision Date | 15 January 1954 |
Docket Number | 399.,No. 18,18 |
Parties | YOUNGSTOWN SHEET AND TUBE COMPANY v. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION ETC., ET AL. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Allen P. Twyman, of East Chicago, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Attorney General, William S. McMasters, Deputy Attorney General, Counsel for all appellees except George Bon. Samuel Ruff, of East Chicago, and Jay E. Darlington, of Hammond, for appellee George Bon.
Appellant brings this appeal from a decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division under § 52-1542 (k), Burns' 1951 Replacement.
Appellee George Bon, hereafter referred to as the claimant, had been an employee of the appellant for thirty-four years and voluntarily retired March 30, 1952, to accept benefits of a pension plan existing in accordance with the bargaining agreement between appellant and the bargaining agent for the claimant. The claimant made application for unemployment benefits on March 31, 1952. A hearing was held by the Claims Deputy which resulted in a decision in favor of the claimant. The Claims Deputy was sustained by the Appeals Referee who held that the claimant was available for work and was physically able to work and therefore eligible for benefits under § 1403 of the Unemployment Security Act of 1947, being § 52-1538 (b), Burns' 1951 Replacement. The decision of the Appeals Referee was then appealed to the Full Board which held that the claimant was available for work during the period in question, to-wit: May 18, 1952, to August 26, 1952, and entitled to benefit rights subject, however, to being reduced weekly by the amounts he received under the employer's pension plan.
The appellant appeals to this court assigning as the only error that the decision of the Review Board is contrary to law.
The question presented by the issues thus formed is whether appellee George Bon was available for work within the meaning of the Indiana Employment Act.
This is a companion case to # 18,398 in this court between the same parties and factually both cases concern the unemployment benefits of Mr. Bon. In cause # 18,398, the Review Board rendered its Findings and Conclusions in part as follows:
which decision of the Review Board this court affirmed.
The decision of the Review Board pertinent to a determination in this case in part is as follows:
This court is therefore presented with the question of whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division that the appellee, George Bon, was entitled to benefits of the Indiana Employment Security Act for the period of May 18, 1952 to August 26, 1952.
The evidence shows that the claimant was looking for a job but could not get one; that he was seventy years of age; that at the time he retired from appellant's corporation he had smashed fingers and was doing sweeping and cleaning, but other than the finger injury he had no physical ailment; that he filed his claim for benefits on March 31, 1952; that he sought employment at small bowling alleys, restaurants and retail stores; that he had asked for clean-up and janitor jobs but that a lot of people were out of work; that he did not know the names of the people whom he had contacted for employment; that he could not get a factory job on account of his age but was able to do light work; that the claimant could not identify the places where he sought employment; that he did not attend the first hearing (# 18,398) although he received notices and letters but did not know what they were. There was evidence by a Claims Deputy that the record showed two names of people the claimant contacted for employment which claimant gave when he registered for work but that in addition he had contacted small grocery stores. The Appeals Referee took judicial knowledge that during the period in question there was in progress in the city where c...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williamson Co. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
...N.E.2d 541 (1969); Dormeyer Industries v. Review Board etc., 133 Ind.App. 500, 183 N.E.2d 351 (1962); Youngstown S. & T. Co. v. Rev. Bd., E.S.D., 124 Ind.App. 273, 116 N.E.2d 650 (1954). Each of these exceptions, if established by the appellant in a given case, can provide the basis for rev......
-
Dormeyer Industries v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division, 19665
...295, 55 N.E.2d 121. * * *' 120 Ind.App. p. 111, 90 N.E.2d p. 525. Also in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, et al. (1954), 124 Ind.App. 273, 116 N.E.2d 650, this court said: '* * * It is a well-recognized rule of law that in matte......
-
Puckett v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Division
...and binding so long as supported by substantial evidence of probative value. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, (1954) 124 Ind.App. 273, 116 N.E.2d 650. Puckett's presence at employer premises was required 8 hours per day, 40 hours per week.......
-
Dooley v. Richard's Standard Service
... ... Youngstown Sheet & Tube ... Co. v. Review Bd. of Ind., E.S.D. (1954), 124 Ind.App. 273, 116 N.E.2d 650 ... ...