Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Division, ALLIS-CHALMERS

• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Writing for the Court: Glen F. Kline, Deputy Atty. Gen.; WILTROUT
• Citation: Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Division, 98 N.E.2d 512, 121 Ind.App. 227 (Ind. App. 1951)
• Decision Date: 04 May 1951
• Docket Number: No. 18149,ALLIS-CHALMERS,18149
• Parties: MFG. CO. v. REVIEW BOARD OF INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION et al.

Page 512

98 N.E.2d 512

121 Ind.App. 227

ALLIS-CHALMERS MFG. CO. v. REVIEW BOARD OF INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION et al.

No. 18149.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

May 4, 1951.

G. R. Redding, Karl J. Stipher and Joseph J. Daniels, all of Indianapolis (Baker & Daniels, Indianapolis, of counsel), for appellant.

Glen F. Kline, Deputy Atty. Gen., J. Emmett McManamon, Atty. Gen., for appellees.

WILTROUT, Chief Judge.

The issue before the Review Board was whether or not claimant, the appellee Sallie H. Maesch, was discharged by her employer, the appellant, for misconduct in connection with her work and thereby became ineligible for waiting period or benefit rights under the provisions of § 1501 of the Indiana Employment Security Act, Burns' 1951 Replacement, § 52-1539.

The Review Board, by a majority of its members, decided that claimant's descharge was not for such misconduct. We are asked to review that decision.

The claimant was employed by appellant on a job in which her compensation was computed on a piece-work basis. Evidence was submitted that upon the completion of a job she turned in a report showing the number of pieces completed. A foreman counted the pieces. Another count was made by the foreman, a representative of appellant's personnel department, and a committeeman representing claimant's union. There was testimony that these counts revealed a lesser number than claimant had reported.

Evidence was also introduced that on a previous occasion claimant reported the completion of work on more pieces of work than was revealed by subsequent counts.

Claimant testified that the counts which she submitted were correct and that she had never at any time falsified a ticket.

The Employment Security Act...