Hatcher v. Smith
Decision Date | 08 June 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 671A104,No. 3,671A104,3 |
Citation | 283 N.E.2d 582,31 Ind.Dec. 234,152 Ind.App. 299 |
Parties | , 80 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2994, 68 Lab.Cas. P 52,875 Richard Gordon HATCHER, Mayor, et al., Appellants (Defendants below), v. Monroe SMITH et al., Appellees (Plaintiffs below) |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Charles A. Ruckman, Asst. City Atty., Gary, for appellants.
Hilbert L. Bradley, Gary, for appellees.
Thirty-three firemen, who were on vacation during a five day firemen's strike in Gary, Indiana, did not receive a week of their vacation pay after the strike had ended. Other firemen, who did not work during the strike, were paid. The thirty-three firemen brought a class action to recover their vacation pay against the Appellants, who shall hereafter be referred to as the 'City.' The trial court found inter alia that the 'City' arbitrarily deducted wages from the vacationing firemen and rendered a judgment for $17,437.50. The 'City' brings this appeal and contends inter alia:
(1) That the 'city's' action was not arbitrary, and
(2) That the trial court committed error in assessing damages for an excess of the back pay lost by the thirty-three vacationing firemen.
We affirm the trial court's judgment as to the arbitrary action taken by the 'City,' but reverse the trial court's judgment as to the assessment of damages with instructions in the opinion that follows:
The thirty-three vacationing firemen filed a complaint on June 23, 1970 which alleged inter alia:
'That in accordance with the rules and regulations of the BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY and Section 2--1236, plaintiffs, and other firemen similarly situated, were granted vacations and sick leave on or about the 30th day of June, 1969.
'That on or about the 5th day of August, 1969, due to a controversy between the firemen and defendants concerning wages and conditions of employment, members of the Gary Fire Department did strike, causing the stations to be locked, fire trucks unmanned, and firefighting discontinued for approximately five (5) days.
'That in violation of the governmental contract of employment, employer-employee relationship, the defendants arbitrarily, unreasonably, and capriciously paid some striking, vacationing or sick leave firemen, whose names are omitted due to numbers, and deducted wages from the plaintiffs for failing to work during the same period.'
A pre-trial order dated October 6, 1970 stipulates that the following list of firemen were paid during the strike from August 5, to and including August 10, 1969, pay period ending August 31, 1969:
1. John LaBroi $114.20 2. Tom Farris 114.20 3. James Rowan 103.40 4. Tom Sourounis 103.40 5. Edwin Nowak 107.50 6. Al Nasiatka 103.40 7. Pete Lewandowski 103.40 8. Novo Martin 9. Nick Koss 103.40 10. Alonzo Smith 117.50 11. Richard Landrum 117.50 12. Joe Ferkull 107.50 13. Oscar Rogers 14. Leo Piet 103.40 15. Albert Gambel 103.50 16. Pete Sut 117.50 17. Andrew Nemtuda 107.50 18. Fred Lazzaro 103.40 19. Willard Ferhat 107.50 20. Kenneth Callaway 109.20
Mr. Ruckman, attorney for the 'City,' further stipulated during trial:
'Now, we are, for the purpose of the record, we can stipulate that the salaries were deducted and the Board of Works did not repay any of the firemen involved in this case.'
The record does not show that the trial court followed Rule TR. 23(C)(3) of the Indiana Rules of Procedure, IC 1971, 34--5--1--1, which provides:
when the trial court rendered its judgment in the sum of $17,437.50. This omission by the trial court will be discussed in greater detail under the section of this opinion dealing with excessive damages.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court will not weigh the evidence nor resolve questions of credibility of witnesses. We will look only to that evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom which support the trial court's judgment. City of Indianapolis v. Schmid (1968), 251 Ind. 147, 240 N.E.2d 66; Turner v. State (1972), Ind., 280 N.E.2d 621; Wm. J. & M. S. Vessey, Inc. v. Hillman (1972), Ind.App., 280 N.E.2d 88. If the action of the trial court is sustainable on any theory, it must be affirmed. Ross v. Review Board (1962), 243 Ind. 61, 182 N.E.2d 585; State ex rel. Tittle v. Covington Comm. Schools (1951), 229 Ind. 208, 96 N.E.2d 334; Lewis v. Burke (1968), 143 Ind.App. 696, 242 N.E.2d 382.
The 'City' contends that the paying of some members of the fire force while deducting wages of the thirty-three vacationing firemen was not arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious as concluded by the trial court. The evidence and all of the reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom most favorable to the thirty-three vacationing firemen and the court's judgment does not support the 'City's' contention.
This evidence shows that the thirty-three vacationing firemen were granted vacations prior to the strike. The Gary Fire Department and the Gary Fire Fighters Association, Local 359 went on strike August 5, 1969. Fire Chief, Alphonso Holliday, isssued back to work orders and cancelled all vacations. Most of the stations were locked and guarded by police to protect the firefighting equipment and the buildings. Some of the vacationing firemen who received Fire Chief Holliday's notice that vacations were cancelled found policemen guarding their stations and were prevented from entering. Alfred Bono testified that he was unable to enter his station. His testimony is as follows:
Captain Nelson Bliss testified:
George Droza testified:
'
A twenty-three year policy of the Department had been that no firemen on vacation was subject to recall during an emergency. This was the first time that Fire Chief Holliday had ever cancelled vacations. Battalion Chief Monroe Smith testified:
Defendants' Exhibit No. 77, which was used to determine deductions, shows a notation next to the name of P. Jones as follows:
'No answer.'
A reasonable inference that may be drawn from this evidence is that P. Jones was never notified that his vacation had been cancelled. Yet on Exhibit 5(A) of Defendants, $114.20 was deducted from P. Jones' pay. These exhibits are supported by Mr. Jones' testimony at trial.
There is ample evidence in the record to show that other firemen who were on strike and did not work were paid. James Anast testified on cross-examination that:
'
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fanning's Estate, In re
...The verdict of the trial court was a general verdict and should be affirmed if it is sustainable on any ground. Hatcher v. Smith (1972), Ind.App. 283 N.E.2d 582, 31 Ind.Dec. 234. Furthermore, I would adhere to the rule of law and reasoning advanced in Zehr v. Daykin, I would affirm the judg......
-
U.S. Aircraft Financing, Inc. v. Jankovich
...In McLendon Judge Young found judicial definitions of abandonment in employment and personal property contexts. Hatcher v. Smith, (1972) 152 Ind.App. 299, 283 N.E.2d 582, 590, defined abandonment of employment as "an absolute relinquishment; a total desertion. . . . Intention is the first a......
-
City Investing Co., Matter of
...compels us to conclude that the order must be set aside. Petition of McDonald, (1961) 241 Ind. 239, 171 N.E.2d 691; Hatcher v. Smith, (1972) 152 Ind.App. 299, 283 N.E.2d 582. When reviewing an administrative order, we are bound to accept the facts as found by the agency if supported by the ......
-
Siddiqi v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
...or circumstances of the case and without some basis which would lead a reasonable and honest man to such action. Hatcher v. Smith (1972) 152 Ind.App. 299, 283 N.E.2d 582; Kinzel v. Rettinger (1972) 151 Ind.App. 119, 277 N.E.2d 913. We may not interfere within the allowable scope of responsi......