Moore v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Div., 2-1183A402
Decision Date | 10 April 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 2-1183A402,2-1183A402 |
Citation | 461 N.E.2d 737 |
Parties | Randy S. 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 Transil Wrap Plastics, Appellees. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Patricia Smith, Legal Services Organization of Indiana, Inc., Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Gordon R. Medlicott, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellees.
Appellant Randy Moore was employed as a utility person for Transil Wrap Plastics. He had worked for the company approximately five weeks. In July 1983, his sister became ill and Moore arranged to take her to the hospital and watch over her. Moore told his employer he would be absent a few days.
The first day of Moore's absence his mother called Transil Wrap and informed his employer that Moore would be absent. The next day Moore called and stated, "I'd be off another day." On the third day of Moore's absence, Transil Wrap called his mother and informed her that Moore's employment had been terminated. Moore picked up his last check approximately one week later.
Moore applied for unemployment compensation. This request was denied due to an initial determination that he "voluntarily left employment without just cause." Moore timely appealed this decision to a referee. The referee entered the following findings and decision which were adopted in toto by the Review Board:
Moore appeals.
On appeal Moore raised three issues which have been combined herein for review. That issue is: whether the evidence was sufficient to support the findings of the Review Board.
Generally, the Review Board's determination of factual questions is conclusive and binding on this Court. On review this Court does not reweigh the evidence and may only consider the evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom which support the Board's decision. A decision by the Board will be reversed only where reasonable persons would be bound to reach a different conclusion. Wakshlag v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employ. Sec., (1980) Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 1078; Ervin v. Rev. Bd. et al., (1977) 173 Ind.App. 592, 364 N.E.2d 1189.
In the case at bar the Board held that Moore had voluntarily left his employment without good cause. In addition, the Board found that Moore's employer had sufficient just cause to terminate Moore due to his absenteeism. Such alternative findings are not contradictory, as contended by appellant, and may be supported by the same set of facts and circumstances in certain situations. See Dozier v. Review Bd. of Indiana, etc., (1982) Ind.App., 436 N.E.2d 373. However, what remains to be seen is whether the facts in the case at bar support either conclusion.
In a situation where an employee is alleged to have been terminated for just cause, the employer bears the burden of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Quillen v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Div., 2-484A103
...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.......
-
Lafferty v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dept. of Employment and Training Services
...have "just cause" to dismiss the employee. See Potts v. Review Bd. (1985), Ind.App., 475 N.E.2d 708, trans. denied; Moore v. Review Bd. (1984), Ind.App., 461 N.E.2d 737. Employment stabilization and protection of the first employer's interest are legitimate state interests supporting the ap......
-
Marsdem v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development
...it. The employer bears the burden of demonstrating that the employee was terminated for just cause. Moore v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Div. (1984), Ind.App., 461 N.E.2d 737, 739. The termination letter CIC sent to Marsdem on July 28, 1994 A registered letter was sent to you dated o......
-
Hehr v. Review Bd. of The Indiana Employment Sec. Div.
...stated reason for discharge) in finding that the claimant was justly discharged. See Moore v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1984) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 461 N.E.2d 737. Thus, although we cannot affirm the Board's decisions on the basis that the claimants violated an e......