Jones v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division, 2-679A175

• Decision Date: 16 June 1980
• Docket Number: No. 2-679A175,2-679A175
• Citation: 405 N.E.2d 601
• Parties: William JONES, Douglas Slaughter, Micko Donyorovic, Renea Garza, Frederick Conner, Roy Carr, Jose Bellver and Ronald T. Moore, Appellants (Claimants below), v. REVIEW BOARD OF the INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION, and Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, Appellees.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 601

405 N.E.2d 601

William JONES, Douglas Slaughter, Micko Donyorovic, Renea Garza, Frederick Conner, Roy Carr, Jose Bellver and Ronald T. Moore, Appellants (Claimants below), v. REVIEW BOARD OF the INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION and Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, Appellees.

No. 2-679A175.

Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fourth District.

June 16, 1980.

Albert C. Hand, Hand & Muenich, Hammond, for appellants.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Richard Albert Alford, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellees.

CHIPMAN, Judge.

This cause is an appeal by William Jones, Douglas Slaughter, Micko Donyorovic, Renea Garza, Frederick Conner, Roy Carr, Jose Bellver and Ronald T. Moore (Claimants) from a decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (Board) denying their petition for Trade Readjustment Benefits under 19 U.S.C. § 2251 (1974) et seq. ¹

We will discuss only two issues. They are:

I. Whether Claimants have timely perfected their appeal and

II. Whether the Board's findings are sufficient to allow proper review by this court.

Affirmed in part and remanded in part.

I. TIMELY FILINGS

Claimants first contend the Board erred in dismissing the appeals of all claimants except William Jones. The record shows all claimants except Jones failed to perfect their appeal in a timely fashion, therefore no error occurred.

Claimants Slaughter, Donyorovic, Garza, Carr, Bellver and Moore failed to file an appeal of the referee's decision with the Board. These claimants cannot directly appeal the referee's decision to this court. See Ind.Code 22-4-17-3 and 22-4-17-11; Reidenbach v. Board of School Trustees of West Noble School Corp., (1980) Ind.App., 398 N.E.2d 1372.

Claimant Conner did perfect an appeal to the Board, however, he failed to timely perfect his appeal from that decision to this court. The Board's decision was mailed on April 10, 1979. William Jones mailed a letter to the Board indicating his intent to appeal the decision on April 20, 1979. ² Conner's name first appeared on a Notice of Amended Appeal filed by Jones on May 10, 1979, which stated:

"Please take notice that appellants, William Jones, Douglas Slaughter, Micko Donyorovic, Renea Garza, Frederick Conner, Roy Carr, Jose Bellver and Ronald T. Moore, pursuant to the Indiana Security Act, Chapter 17, Section 11 (IC 1971, 22-4-17-11) et seq., do hereby amend their notice of appeal to the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division and Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company which was mailed on April 23, 1979, and received and acknowledged on April 25, 1979 by the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security and acknowledgment forwarded on April 27, 1979, to clarify that such notice was intended to relate to all of the appellants in accordance with the handling of the claimants as a class and as set out and referred to in the decision of the Review Board which was mailed on April 10, 1979."

We cannot say that the reference in this correspondence is sufficient to be considered a notice of appeal by Conner. In addition, it was not mailed until after the fifteen day limit set out in Ind.Code 22-4-17-11 had lapsed.

The timely filing of an appeal is mandatory as a condition precedent to our obtaining jurisdiction of the cause. Teepe v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, (1964) 136 Ind.App. 331, 200 N.E.2d 538. Thus, there was no error in dismissing the appeals of Slaughter, Donyorovic, Garza, Carr, Bellver, Moore and Conner.

II. SUFFICIENCY OF FINDINGS

We cannot reach the merits of Jones's appeal since the findings of fact made by the Board are insufficient. We must, therefore, remand his cause to the Board for further findings. The issue is presented in the following scenario.

In response to the lag in the steel industry caused by the importation of less expensive foreign steel, the federal government offered additional unemployment benefits, Trade Readjustment Allowances, under the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. 2251 et seq., to unemployed steel workers. Several workers who had been laid off from the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company (Company) filed a petition to receive these benefits. A certification of eligibility for workers from the Company was issued by the Department of Labor, ³ which in part stated:

"In order to make an affirmative determination and issue a certification of eligibility to apply for adjustment assistance, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974 must be met:

(1) that a significant number of proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision thereof, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) that sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely;

(3) that articles like or directly competitive with those produced by the firm or subdivision are being imported in increased quantities, either actual or relative to domestic production; and

(4) that such increased imports have contributed importantly to the separation, or threat thereof and to the decrease in sales or production.

The term 'contributed importantly' means a cause which is important but not necessarily more important than any other cause."

(set out in 19 U.S.C. § 2272 (1974))

"This investigation has revealed that (a) for workers engaged in employment related to the production of tin mill cold rolled sheet and strip, hot rolled sheet and strip and galvanized sheet, criterion (2) has not been met; (b) for workers engaged in employment related to the production of bar and bar products, criterion (3) has not been met."

"This investigation has further revealed that all of the above criteria have been met for workers engaged in employment related to the production of pipe and tubing and steel plate."

"Conclusion

After careful review of the facts obtained in the investigation, I conclude that increases of imports of articles like or directly competitive with tin plate, hot and cold rolled sheet and strip, galvanized sheet, and bar and bar products produced at the East Chicago, Indiana Plant of Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company did not contribute importantly to the total or partial separations of workers at that plant as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974."

"I further conclude that increases of imports like or directly competitive with steel plate, pipe and tubing produced at the East Chicago, Indiana plant of Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company contributed importantly to the total or partial separation of workers at the Plant. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification:

'All workers engaged in employment related to the production of steel plate and pipe and tubing at the East Chicago, Indiana Plant of Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after November 1, 1975 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2 of the Trade Act of 1974.' "

A mass hearing was held on June 29, 1978, to determine eligibility of workers under the certification. The liability appeals referee issued his decision on July 25, 1978, and it was sustained by the Board. The findings and conclusions of the appeals referee were incorporated in full and they read as follows:

"The claimants and each of them were found not to be entitled to Trade Readjustment Allowance since they were not separated from adversely affected employment. ⁴ The claimants indicated by their testimony that they were involved in a fundamental processing area which serviced the affected area those being the seamless and the CBW pipe mills. The claimants, however, further indicated that they serviced other areas of the mill and that their work was dependent on the number of man hours as supplied from each of the mills that they serviced. The claimants did indicate that as the seamless and pipe mills began to slow down the work in their area began to slow and as a result they were affected. The claimants further indicated by their representative that through the plant-wide seniority bump back situation as set forth...