Arthur Winer, Inc. v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Division, 18059
| Citation | 120 Ind.App. 638,95 N.E.2d 214 |
| Decision Date | 29 November 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 18059,18059 |
| Parties | ARTHUR WINER, Inc., v. REVIEW BOARD OF INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION et al. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Edward B. Raub, Jr., Indianapolis, Donald J. Yellon, Chicago, Ill. (White, Wright, Raub & Forrey, Indianapolis, D'Ancona, Pflaum, Wyatt & Riskind, Chicago, Ill., of counsel), for appellant.
Murray H. Finley, Chicago, Ill., A. J. Wilhelm, Indianapolis, for appellees.
The question here is whether the appellee was disqualified for benefits because she was discharged for misconduct in connection with her work, in accordance with the provisions of § 1501 of the Indiana Employment Security Act, ch. 208, Acts 1947, Burns' 1949 Supp., Vol. 10, § 52-1539, which provides that an employee shall be ineligible for waiting period or benefit rights for a specified time if he 'has been discharged for misconduct in connection with his work'.
The local deputy determined that the appellee was ineligible to receive benefits for the specified period. The appeals referee affirmed. The review board, by a majority of its members, reversed the decision of the appeals referee and held that the appellee was not discharged for misconduct in connection with her work, and that she is entitled to benefit rights without disqualification.
The appellee operated a serging machine in appellant's garment factory. She was an experienced operator. There is evidence that she persistently disregarded instructions and warnings about oiling her machine, and wilfully failed and refused to oil it properly or sufficiently, which resulted in the burning out of five bearings in eight months; that she said she didn't have time to keep oiling her machine. There is also testimony to the effect that the same trouble was not encountered with other serging machines in appellant's establishment, nor with appellee's machine when it was operated by others. On the other hand there is testimony that the appellee oiled her machine 5 times a day; that oil was always seeping out of the valve; that she had complained to the mechanic about her machine quite a bit and he tried to fix it, but couldn't; that she never said she didn't have time to keep oiling her machine; that bearings sometimes burn out even if the machine is taken care of
Sec. 1812 of the Act, being Burns' 1949, Supp., Vol. 10, § 52-1542k provides that 'Any decision of the review board shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact.' We have accordingly held that this court may not weigh the evidence. We must accept the facts as found by the board, and can disregard them only in the event they are not sustained by any evidence of probative value. Merkle v. Review Board of Indiana Emp. Sec. Div., 1950, Ind.App., 90 N.E.2d 524, 526, and cases therein cited.
We have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dailey v. Board of Review
...identical to the Michigan definition adopted by this Court, was explained as follows in Arthur Winer, Inc. v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, 120 Ind.App. 638, 95 N.E.2d 214 (1950): It is conduct `evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests as i......
-
Industrial Laundry v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
...absences have never been so held. The burden of proving claimant's misconduct rests on the employer. A Winer, Inc. v. Review Board (1950), 120 Ind.App. 638, 641, 95 N.E.2d 214; Boynton Cab Co. v. Giese (1941), 237 Wis. 237, 296 N.W. 630. The Board found (or concluded) not that claimant was ......
-
Miller v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Div.
...disregard of the employer's interest, or of the employee's duties or obligation to his employer. Arthur Winer, Inc. v. Review Board, (1950) 120 Ind.App. 638, 95 N.E.2d 214." (Emphasis 413 N.E.2d at 1082. Our standard of review was then set out in Wakshlag as follows: " 'Initially we point o......
-
Williamson Co. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
...foregoing offenses in order to justify the refusal to pay unemployment benefits under the statute. A. Winer, Inc. v. Review Bd., Emp. Sec. Div., 120 Ind.App. 638, 641, 95 N.E.2d 214 (1950). In the instant case the employer did, in fact, establish that employee-Fry had deliberately violated ......