Fort Wayne Community Schools v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
| Decision Date | 15 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-681A206,2-681A206 |
| Citation | 428 N.E.2d 1379 |
| Parties | 1 Ed. Law Rep. 946 FORT WAYNE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, Appellant-Claimant, 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, and Dane C. Starbuck, Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
James P. Fenton, Fort Wayne, for appellant-claimant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Gordon R. Medlicott, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellees.
Wayne O. Adams, III and Donald J. Graham, Bingham, Summers, Welsh & Spilman, Indianapolis, for appellee Dane C. Starbuck.
Fort Wayne Community Schools (FWCS) appeals from a decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (Review Board) determining Dane C. Starbuck eligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits. We affirm.
Starbuck had been employed for four (4) semesters as an English teacher and tennis coach by FWCS. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between FWCS and Fort Wayne Education Association requiring a notice of layoff at least forty (40) days before the end of the semester, Starbuck was sent a letter on March 11, 1980, by the superintendent of FWCS advising him that present conditions indicated a reduction in teaching positions for the ensuing school year, and that as one of the teachers of least seniority he would be subject to layoff at the end of the current year. The letter also advised that if conditions changed his layoff might not be required and that in the past, few teachers had been laid off. In fact, the previous year Starbuck had received a like letter but had been called back in August. The letter further stated that "(i)n the event you are without a job this fall, you will be assigned automatically to the Substitute Teacher List on Subsequent to receiving the layoff notice, Starbuck sought other employment but was unsuccessful. Since he had been considering returning to Indiana University to complete a master's degree, and had not heard from FWCS concerning employment in the fall of 1980, Starbuck applied for a one year leave of absence. When this request was denied, Starbuck resigned on August 18, 1980, and enrolled in the university.
September 1, 1980, unless you have requested that your name be omitted from the list. Teachers on layoff will be called first as substitute teachers are needed." Record at 14. On March 13, 1980, FWCS sent Starbuck a "Secondary Teacher Layoff List for 1980-81" which listed him fifth in seniority among seven English teachers on the layoff list.
On August 11, 1980, FWCS negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement under which Starbuck would have been eligible for employment as a permanent substitute teacher at a regular teacher's salary, rather than the much lower rate of pay of day-to-day substitutes. This agreement was not printed and made available to teachers until sometime later.
Starbuck applied for unemployment compensation benefits contending his employment was terminated on June 6, 1980. He was denied eligibility for such benefits by the deputy who found that he had a reasonable assurance of being employed as a teacher in the ensuing school year. The referee affirmed the deputy's decision and Starbuck appealed to the Review Board. The Review Board reversed the referee entering the following findings and conclusions:
Fort Wayne Community Schools raises the following issues, which we have renumbered, for our consideration:
1. Whether the decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, finding Dane C. Starbuck eligible for unemployment benefits, is supported by findings adequate to sustain the decision.
2. Whether the decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, finding Dane C. Starbuck eligible for unemployment benefits, is contrary to law.
3. Whether the decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, finding Dane C. Starbuck eligible for unemployment benefits, is supported by sufficient evidence to sustain the decision.
Before addressing the merits of Starbuck's claim to unemployment compensation benefits, we must determine the issue of the sufficiency of the Review Board's findings. FWCS asserts the findings are inadequate because of the failure of the Review Board to address the issues of whether or not Starbuck had a contract or a reasonable assurance of employment for the ensuing school year. The basis for this contention is Ind.Code 22-4-14-7(2) (Supp. 1980) which provides:
"(2) with respect to service performed after December 31, 1977, in an instructional, research, or principal administrative capacity for an educational institution (other than an institution of higher education as defined in IC 22-4-2-31), benefits may not be paid based on the service for any week of unemployment commencing during the period between two (2) successive academic years, or terms, or during the period between two (2) regular but not successive terms, or during a period of paid sabbatical leave provided for in the individual's contract, to any individual if the individual performs the services in the first of the academic years or terms and if there is a contract or a reasonable assurance that the individual will perform services in an instructional, research, or principal administrative capacity for any educational institution (other than an institution of higher education as defined in IC 22-4-2-31) in the second of the academic years or terms;" (Emphasis added.)
Starbuck, on the other hand, contends a finding that he had neither a contract nor reasonable assurance of continued employment is implicit in the finding that he was laid off effective June 6, 1980, due to lack of work.
We recognize the well established rule requiring every administrative agency to make findings of fact which contain all the specific facts relevant to contested issues so that this court can determine whether or not the agency has resolved those issues in conformity with the law. Fuller v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, (1981) Ind.App., 423 N.E.2d 725; Jones v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, (1980) Ind.App., 405 N.E.2d 601. The findings of the Review Board must be specific enough to permit this court intelligently to review the Board's decision. Fuller v. Review Board, supra; Jones v. Review Board, supra. The purpose of the rule requiring such findings is to facilitate judicial review. Hawley v. South Bend Department of Redevelopment, (1978) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 333. In Hawley, our supreme court held the failure to make findings of underlying facts was harmless error since "the trial court had no problem in reviewing the action of the Commission since the hearing was fully transcribed." 383 N.E.2d at 336. In Capital Improvement Board of Managers of Marion County v. Public Service Commission, (1978) Ind.App., 375 N.E.2d 616, 631, this court stated:
"When the facts and findings of the agency are stated with sufficient particularity and specificity that this court feels it can adequately and competently review and comprehend the decision of the agency, the requirement of reciting specific facts is satisfied."
While the Review Board's findings are not a model of draftsmanship for such findings, we believe they are sufficient to permit intelligent review of the decision. In its decision, the Review Board referred to Ind.Code 22-4-14-7 (Supp. 1980) as the statute involved, and in its case history stated:
In addition, the record of the hearing before the referee, upon which the Review Board's decision is predicated, amply demonstrated that the issue of whether or not Starbuck had a contract or reasonable assurance of employment was fully developed. Thus, we believe the record is ample for us intelligently to review the Board's decision. Further, we agree that a finding that Starbuck had neither a contract nor a reasonable assurance of continued employment is implicit in the finding he was laid off as of June 6, 1980. We proceed to a determination of this case on the merits.
Fort Wayne Community Schools contends the decision of the Review Board finding Starbuck eligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits is contrary to law because he was ineligible...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alexander v. Employment Sec. Dept. of State of Wash.
...503 (1981); and Lyman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd., 76 Pa.Comm. 348, 463 A.2d 1270 (1983) But compare, Fort Wayne Community Schools v. Review Bd, Ind.App., 428 N.E.2d 1379 (1981); Sulat v. Board of Review, 176 N.J.Super. 584, 424 A.2d 451 (1980); and Mallon v. Employment Division, 41 Or.App. 4......
-
Ash v. Board of Review, Ohio Bureau of Employment Services, 85-1431
...significance whether a school board actually called regarding a substitute job the following fall.7 E.g., Fort Wayne Community Schools v. Review Bd. (Ind.App.1981), 428 N.E.2d 1379; Johnson v. Independent School Dist. No. 535 (Minn.1980), 291 N.W.2d 699; Leissring v. Dept. of Industry (1983......
-
Abulhosn v. Employment Sec. Dept. of Washington
...v. Department of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 115 Wis.2d 475, 340 N.W.2d 533 (1983); Fort Wayne Comm'ty Schs. v. Review Board of Ind. Empl. Sec. Div., 428 N.E.2d 1379 (Ind.Ct.App.1981); Kelly v. Employment Div., 74 Or.App. 69, 701 P.2d 448 (1985); Whitley v. Board of Review, 116 Ill.App......
-
Kelly v. Employment Div.
...benefits. See Whitley v. Board of Review, 116 Ill.App. 3rd 476, 71 Ill.Dec. 788, 451 N.E.2d 1942 (1983); Fort Wayne Community Schools v. Review Bd., 428 N.E.2d 1379, Ind.App. (1981); Johnson v. Independence School Dist. No. 535, 291 N.W.2d 699 (Minn.1980); Sulat v. Board of Review, 176 N.J.......