Jackson v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division, 19816

• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Writing for the Court: CLEMENTS
• Citation: Jackson v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division, 191 N.E.2d 525, 135 Ind.App. 22, 1 Ind.Dec. 604 (Ind. App. 1963)
• Decision Date: 27 June 1963
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 19816,19816,1
• Parties: Juanita P. JACKSON, Appellant, v. REVIEW BOARD OF the INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION, Douglas J. Morris, David R. Oliver and Frank C. McAlister as Members of and Constituting the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, and Heinz Manufacturing Company, Inc., Appellees

Page 525

191 N.E.2d 525

135 Ind.App. 22

Juanita P. JACKSON, Appellant, v. REVIEW BOARD OF the INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION Douglas J. Morris, David R. Oliver and Frank C. McAlister as Members of and Constituting the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, and Heinz Manufacturing Company, Inc., Appellees.

No. 19816.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

June 27, 1963.

George W. Brady, Muncie, for appellant.

Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Keith Campbell, Deputy Atty., Gen., for appellee Review Bd.

Leland B. Cross, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellee Heinz Mfg. Co. Inc.; Ross, McCord, Ice & Miller, Indianapolis, of counsel.

CLEMENTS, Judge.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, which found that appellant had been discharged for misconduct in connection with her work and denied unemployment benefits to the appellant.

The statement of facts and findings and conclusions of the Review Board are set out in full as follows:

'STATEMENT OF FACT: The claimant was a production worker, with 13 years' service, and also a shop steward. As shop steward, claimant attended a meeting on February 7, 1961 between the plant superitendent and the shop committee, which committee was comprised of this claimant and four other workers. The superintendent proposed to the committee the modification of the rule of job assignment, as based strictly on seniority, by taking into consideration also the ability of the worker as a factor. In support of his proposal, the superintendent cited two examples in particular, one being the case of employee Jim Leisure as being better suited to and preferable for wire fabrication than for the job of 'plate racker', that he was then doing by reason of seniority. The superintendent concluded that it would be to everyone's advantage if the highest skilled employee could do the job in which he had the highest skill. The committee replied that they would take his proposal to the membership, and immediately thereafter the following notice was posted under date of February 7, 1961 and over the signature of the superintendent, viz.

"The Company requests that for a period of from 60 to 90 days that all plant wide seniority be waived.

"People will be selected for jobs on a basis of ability to perform the work required.

"The seniority list will be followed in so far as possible, however selection of employees required will be solely at the discretion of the Company.'

'That evening, after work, the claimant stopped Jim Leisure in the parking lot and in substance gave him a speech about Congress and the State Legislature and informed him that though he had 'done his dirty work for the company', they were now going to let him go. The claimant contends that she instead told Leisure that during the meeting the superintendent had mentioned that he had two workers in the plating room putting out bad work, but that 'the company was learning to live with it'. She denied she ever spoke to the other employee on the subject. The claimant contends she so advised Mr. Leisure for his own good and benefit. First thing the next morning, when the superintendent entered the plating room, he was accosted by Leisure who inquired as to 'wat the hell was going on'. He said to the superintendent, 'I understood you are going to get rid of me. Are you going to do it right now or do you want me to stay until you get a replacement?' The employee, Leisure, recounted to the superintendent what this claimant had told him the evening before, i. e., how he had done the company's dirty work and now the company was going to get rid of him. The superintendent explained the true circumstances to Leisure, admonished him not to be upset, and advised him to continue at his work and to forget the matter. The man was so shaken, however, that he was dropping pieces of work and the superintendent ordered the group leader to slow down the plating cycle.

'The claimant was discharged the same day, after the superintendent conferred with other members of management and with the committee. There was evidence of previous rule infractions of the claimant that resulted in warnings and disciplinary action.

'FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: As a matter of ordinary decorum, the proceedings of the meeting...