Moore v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
Decision Date | 30 June 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 2-180A26,2-180A26 |
Citation | 406 N.E.2d 325 |
Parties | Betty A. MOORE, Appellant, 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 Foundtain (sic ) View Nursing Home, Appellees. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
L. Peter Iverson, Legal Services Organization of Indiana, Inc., Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Carmen L. Quintana, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellees.
Betty A. Moore appeals from a decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division affirming the referee's denial of benefits under the Indiana Employment Security Act. On appeal, Ms. Moore raises three issues for our consideration. Because of our disposition of the case, we will limit our discussion to only one issue. Ms. Moore asks, if the Review Board's findings, as related to her reinstatement following her incorrect discharge, were contrary to law and unsupported by substantial evidence?
We reverse and remand.
The relevant facts indicate that Ms. Moore was discharged on September 11, 1979. She filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits the same day. On October 5, 1979, a claims deputy of the Indiana Employment Security Division denied Ms. Moore's benefits and found that she had voluntarily left "employment without good cause in connection with the work when she walked off the job and refused to return." 1
Ms. Moore then requested and received a hearing before a referee. On November 7, 1979, the referee entered his decision affirming the decision of the deputy. Ms. Moore appealed to the Review Board which reviewed the record of the referee hearing and issued its decision without a hearing. It affirmed the referee's decision and adopted his findings and conclusions:
Ms. Moore argues that the findings that she was "reinstated and that she quit are not supported by any evidence and are contradicted by other findings of fact which were made by the referee and adopted by the Review Board."
In reviewing a determination of the Review Board, this Court is limited to an examination of the evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom which support the Board's decision. Shoup v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Div. (1980), Ind.App., 399 N.E.2d 771. We must accept the facts as found by the Review Board unless its findings fall within one of the exceptions for which this Court may reverse. Shoup, supra. A reversible error has been committed if there is no substantial evidence supporting the conclusions of the Review Board. Siddiqi v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div. (1979), Ind.App., 388 N.E.2d 613; Williamson Co. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Emp. Sec. Div. (1969), 145 Ind.App. 266, 250 N.E.2d 612, 616.
An at-will employment agreement is a contract in which mutuality and voluntariness are required; it is formed when an offer of work is accepted. Because it is a contract at will, it may be unilaterally terminated by either party. Once terminated, however, a meeting of the minds is necessary in order to once again establish the employment relationship. Batts v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Div. (1979), Ind.App., 385 N.E.2d 1174.
In Jones v. Review Board of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div. (1980), Ind.App., 399 N.E.2d 844, the appellant protested a change in her working hours which had been established by prior agreement with her employer. Nevertheless, she agreed to accept the change. Later, she informed her supervisor that she would be unable to work the new hours because of parental responsibilities. Judge Garrard's comments in Jones, supra at 845 are particularly instructive here:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wior v. Anchor Industries, Inc.
...of employment; a meeting of the minds is necessary to establish the employment relationship. Moore v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division (1980), Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 325. Mutual assent is a prerequisite to the creation of a contract. Jackson v. Blanchard (1992), Ind.App., ......
-
Zimmer US, Inc. v. Keefer
...employment at Zimmer. Such a scheme is consistent with general principles of Indiana law. See Moore v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Emp't Sec. Div., 406 N.E.2d 325, 327 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (holding that an employment agreement is formed "when an offer of work is accepted"); Batts v. Review Bd. o......
-
Wasylk v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Div.
...Poort v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, (1981) Ind.App., 418 N.E.2d 1193; Moore v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, (1980) Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 325; Jones v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, (1980) Ind.App., 399 N.E.2d 844, tr......
-
Quillen v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Div., 2-484A103
...these circumstances does so with "good cause" and is entitled to unemployment benefits. Moore v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, (1980) Ind.App., 406 N.E.2d 325, 328; Jones v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, (1980) Ind.App., 399 N.E.2d 844......