Gathering v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Div.
| Citation | 495 N.E.2d 207 |
| Decision Date | 15 July 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-1285A400,2-1285A400 |
| Parties | The GATHERING, Appellant (Employer Below), v. REVIEW BOARD of the INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION, John C. Mowrer, David L. Adams, and Joe A. Harris, as members of and as constituting the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, and Donetta R. Drangmeister, Appellees (Employee Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Cohen & Thiros by Dawn Wellman, Merrillville, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Cheryl L. Grainer, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for Review Bd.
James V. Tsoutsouris by Joanne Tapocsi, Valparaiso, for Employee.
Employer-Appellant The Gathering appeals the decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (Review Board) finding Claimant-Employee We affirm.
Donetta R. Drangmeister (Drangmeister) left her employment with good cause and thus was entitled to unemployment benefits. IND.CODE 22-4-15-1(b). 1
The Gathering raises one issue for our review:
1. Whether the Review Board's finding Drangmeister is entitled to unemployment benefits is contrary to law.
Drangmeister petitions for her costs on appeal because of appellant's obdurate behavior.
Drangmeister began working at The Gathering, a Valparaiso restaurant, in October 1981. She was hired as a waitress. She subsequently was promoted to assistant, then banquet coordinator.
In September 1984, Drangmeister was receiving "constant friction and harrassment" from her manager. Because of the problem, she gave the restaurant two weeks notice of her resignation.
As an incentive for Drangmeister to stay, Bill Kinney (Kinney), managing supervisor for all The Gathering restaurants, 2 offered Drangmeister a 2% commission on banquet food and liquor sales, and training for the position of assistant manager. Her training was to commence "at the first of the year." On January 5, 1985, Drangmeister asked supervisor Kinney when the training would begin. Kinney said he and owner Michael Rosenow (Rosenow) would meet with her on January 12 to finalize the plans for her training, and her new rate of pay.
On January 12, Drangmeister, busy arranging an upcoming banquet with customers, was unable to meet with Rosenow and Kinney. Rosenow said he would return to discuss the matter later, but the later meeting never occurred. Kinney thereafter scheduled Drangmeister to work as a hostess and assistant manager on January 14. She was then scheduled to work as sole manager or assistant manager, depending on the night, until January 23. Excepting the 2% commission she already received on banquet food and liquor sales, Drangmeister never received more than banquet coordinator pay.
On January 23, Drangmeister asked Kinney about the promotion to assistant manager. Kinney then informed her "things would remain the same." Drangmeister quit her job, saying she had "lost respect for the management."
No specific date or rate of pay had been discussed regarding Drangmeister's assistant managership. Rosenow testified no assistant manager position was available with the restaurant in January 1985, Drangmeister was performing in a "quasi-management" position, and he had given her no definite promise of a position in management.
On March 21, 1985, a Review Board deputy found Drangmeister had voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Drangmeister appealed. The appeals referee reversed the initial decision, finding and concluding:
FINDINGS OF FACT: The claimant worked for the subject employer for the period from October, 1981 to January 23, 1985, last being employed as a dining room supervisor, assistant manager, and CONCLUSION: From the foregoing findings of fact, it is concluded in light of the undisputed testimony of claimant that employer failed to comply with their agreed to promise of a promotion and/or pay increase to claimant; and as a result, claimant's quitting was with good cause in connection with the work.
hostess, earning five (5) dollars per hour for full-time employment. That on or about January 23, 1985, the claimant voluntarily left her employment with the subject employer based on the employer's actions in failing to comply with their promise made to her that in effect after the new year, she would be promoted to the assistant manager's position with a pay increase. The facts show that given this promise and/or representation, the claimant continued to work on occasions and/or was trained for the assistant manager's position; and that after January 1, 1985, when talked to by claimant once again about the promise, promotion, and raise, the claimant was in effect informed that she would not, without explanation, be given the promotion and/or a pay raise as agreed to. The facts reflect that given the employer's actions, claimant did elect to voluntarily leave her employment.
DECISION: The deputy's initial determination is hereby reversed to show the claimant voluntarily left her employment with good cause in connection with the work. The penalties, therefore, of Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Indiana Employment Security Act are not applicable in this particular case. The claimant is entitled to unemployment benefits, if otherwise eligible.
The Gathering appealed to the full Review Board. The Review Board affirmed the appeals referee's decision. This appeal follows.
Other facts necessary to our decision appear below.
The Gathering claims the Review Board's decision Drangmeister left her employment with good cause, and thus was eligible for unemployment benefits, is not supported by sufficient evidence and is therefore contrary to law. In Quillen v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1984), Ind.App., 468 N.E.2d 238, we discussed the applicable standard of review on appeals from Review Board determinations, stating:
We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses in unemployment compensation cases. Our sole function is to determine whether the Review Board's findings of fact contain all specific facts relevant to the contested issue. We next determine whether the Review Board has resolved those issues in conformity with the law. Smithson v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, (1983) Ind.App., 446 N.E.2d 1014, 1015. The Board's findings are deemed conclusive and we consider only the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom supporting the Board's decision. We reverse if either there is no substantial evidence to support the Review Board's findings or reasonable persons would reach a different result. Moore v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, (1984) Ind.App., 461 N.E.2d 737, 739. Scholl v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, (1984) Ind.App., 461 N.E.2d 691, 692. Mshar v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, (1983) Ind.App., 445 N.E.2d 1376, 1377.
An employee who voluntarily leaves his employment without good cause is ineligible for full unemployment benefits. IC 22-4-15-1(b); see also Jackson v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1966), 138 Ind.App. 528, 215 N.E.2d 355, 360. Whether a claimant has left work without good cause is a question of fact for the Review Board. Quillen, supra, 468 N.E.2d 238, 241; Dozier v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1982) Ind.App., 436 N.E.2d 373, 375.
In Foster v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1981), Ind.App., 421 N.E.2d 744, Judge Ratliff stated:
It has consistently been recognized in Indiana that good cause which justifies voluntary termination must be job-related and objective. See Geckler v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, (1963) 244 Ind. 473, 193 N.E.2d 357; Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, supra. In Geckler v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, supra, 244 Ind. at 477-78, 193 N.E.2d at 359, our supreme court stated:
Thus, a claimant who has terminated his or her employment must show that (1) the reasons for abandoning the employment were such as would motivate a reasonable, prudent person to terminate under the same or similar circumstances; and (2) these reasons are objectively related to the job. Gray v. Dobbs House, Inc., (1976) 171 Ind.App. 444, 357 N.E.2d 900.
The Gathering claims Drangmeister's reasons for quitting were not job related, they were merely personal. It cites Drangmeister's statement she had "lost faith in the management" to support that claim. We disagree.
Drangmeister threatened to quit her job in September 1984. As an incentive for her to stay, the managing supervisor made promises to her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barron v. Ward
...exists (Burke v. Board of Review (1985), 132 Ill.App.3d 1094, 87 Ill.Dec. 823, 477 N.E.2d 1351; Gathering v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security (Ind.App.1986), 495 N.E.2d 207; Meyer v. Skyline Mobile Homes (1979), 99 Idaho 754, 589 P.2d 89) and assert that plaintiff did not meet th......
-
McClain v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development
...of the evidence from the perspective favoring the Board's decision." Hehr, 534 N.E.2d at 1125; Gathering v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 495 N.E.2d 207, 209 (Ind.Ct.App.1986). It is not always clear whether this "reasonable person" test is applied to the review of basic fact......
-
Hayes v. K-Mart Corp., C1-02-2056.
...a raise gives an employee good cause to quit is a matter of first impression in Minnesota. Cf. The Gathering v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 495 N.E.2d 207, 210 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) (holding employer's failure to grant promised promotion and pay raise gave employee good cause to qu......
-
KBI, Inc. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development
...findings, would be bound to reach a different result. Watterson v. Review Bd. (1991), Ind.App., 568 N.E.2d 1102; Gathering v. Review Bd. (1986), Ind.App., 495 N.E.2d 207. When a Review Board decision is challenged as contrary to law, this court's authority is limited to a two-part inquiry. ......