Arrendale v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Div.

• Decision Date: 16 February 1983
• Docket Number: No. 2-982A310,2-982A310
• Citation: 445 N.E.2d 128
• Parties: Robert M. ARRENDALE, Claimant-Appellant, v. REVIEW BOARD OF the INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION, William H. Skinner, David L. Adams, and Paul M. Hutson, as Members of and as constituting the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, Appellee, and City of Marion, Employer-Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 128

445 N.E.2d 128

Robert M. ARRENDALE, Claimant-Appellant, v. REVIEW BOARD OF the INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION William H. Skinner, David L. Adams, and Paul M. Hutson, as Members of and as constituting the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, Appellee and City of Marion, Employer-Appellee.

No. 2-982A310.

Court of Appeals of Indiana Third District.

Feb. 16, 1983.

Richard J. Swanson, Segal & Macey, Indianapolis, for claimant-appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Gordon R. Medlicott, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

HOFFMAN, Presiding Judge.

Robert M. Arrendale brings this appeal from the decision of the Review Board of the Employment Security Division which denied him eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits. He presents two issues for our review:

(1) whether, when the terms and conditions of an oral employment agreement under which an employee agrees to perform temporary part-time work are unilaterally changed by his employer by increasing the employee's working hours and refusing to replace him, an employee can cease employment for good cause within the meaning of Ind.Code Sec. 22-4-15-1 (Burns 1982 Supp.); and

(2) whether an employee who quits a part-time employer, which is one of two simultaneous employers, in order to remain with his permanent full-time employer does so with good cause in connection with the work within the meaning of Ind.Code Sec. 22-4-15-1.

In light of our decision, only the latter issue need be discussed.

For more than ten years before the spring of 1981, Arrendale worked as a full-time production employee at the Fisher Body plant. From May 1, 1981 to May 26, 1981 Arrendale worked for the City of Marion as a groundskeeper for the city softball diamonds. Arrendale accepted the job on a temporary basis as a favor to Willard Chambers, Parks and Recreation Director for the City of Marion. Chambers asked Arrendale to do the groundskeeping work in his spare time until Chambers could find a full-time permanent groundskeeper. Arrendale undertook the $60 per week job as a temporary source of extra income, but never intended for the job to replace his regular factory employment. Chambers knew that Arrendale's employment with the City was to be temporary and part-time, and Chambers agreed to locate a replacement for Arrendale. An oral agreement containing those conditions was made between the two men.

Shortly after Arrendale began working for the City, Fisher Body increased the number of overtime hours for its regular employees. Arrendale was required by the governing collective bargaining agreement at Fisher Body to work all the overtime assigned to him. Arrendale's job at Fisher Body increased to a six or seven day work week, which meant he was working a forty-hour week plus weekend overtime at Fisher Body and still maintaining his part-time job with the City. Arrendale made several inquiries as to how soon he would be replaced. The City was pleased with his work and admitted using Arrendale to "buy some time," hoping he would continue. Arrendale stayed with the part-time City job until May 26, 1981 at which time he was replaced by a full-time employee and his services were no longer needed.

Five weeks later, Arrendale was indefinitely laid off from his full-time employment at the Fisher Body plant. Arrendale applied for unemployment compensation benefits. However, his claim was denied, and he was found ineligible for benefits because of his earlier decision not to continue his part-time work with the City.

The decision was based upon Ind.Code Sec. 22-4-15-1(d) which provides in pertinent part:

"The disqualifications provided in this section shall be subject to the following modifications:

(1) An individual shall not be subject to disqualification because of separation from his prior employment if he left to accept with another employer previously secured...