Osojnick v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division, 19208

• Decision Date: 18 May 1959
• Docket Number: No. 1,No. 19208,19208,1
• Citation: 158 N.E.2d 656,129 Ind.App. 515
• Parties: Helen M. OSOJNICK, Appellant, v. REVIEW BOARD OF INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION, William S. McMaster, Howard Friend and William G. Johnson, as Members of and as constituting the Review Board of The Indiana Employment Security Division; and Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Appellees
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 656

158 N.E.2d 656

129 Ind.App. 515

Helen M. OSOJNICK, Appellant, v. REVIEW BOARD OF INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION, William S. McMaster, Howard Friend and William G. Johnson, as Members of and as constituting the Review Board of The

Indiana Employment Security Division; and Illinois Bell

Telephone Company, Appellees.

No. 19208.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

May 18, 1959.

John N. Stanton, East Chicago, for appellant.

Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Keith Campbell and Robert W. McNevin, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellee Review Bd.

Frederic D. Anderson, George J. Zazas, Indianapolis, Barnes, Hickam, Pantzer & Boyd, Indianapolis, of counsel, for appellee Bell Telephone Co.

MYERS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, hereinafter called the Board. The question involved is whether the appellant was disqualified for benefits because she was discharged for misconduct in connection with her work, in accordance with the provisions of the Acts of 1957, ch. 261, § 1, p. 615, being § 52-1539, Burns' Ind.Stat. (Supp.), which provides that an employee shall be ineligible for benefit rights for a specified time if such employee 'has been discharged for misconduct in connection with his work.'

Appellant had been employed by the Illinois Bell Telephone Company for approximately nine years as a telephone operator at the employer's exchange in East Chicago. She had been on excused leave for one week and an additional week of vacation and returned therefrom on or about September 10, 1957. The evidence reveals that the East Chicago office was being converted to a dial system and that it was necessary for the operators to take training in Hammond and Gary for new positions. Appellant was aware of this and had been scheduled to take training in Gary during the month of October, 1957. When she returned to her work on or about September 10 she found that there had been a change in her schedule which required that she start work in Gary on the following Monday, being September 16. Appellant and her husband were building a new home and were planning to move in during the week of September 16, and appellant had intended to ask for excused leave during that week. At 5:00 p. m. on September 12 appellant came to work and she and her chief operator, a Mrs. Gatewood, became involved in an argument regarding the change. During the course of the argument the chief operator ordered appellant to go back to her switchboard. There was testimony that appellant was so nervous and upset that she was unable to do so. The chief operator left the room and upon her return ten minutes later appellant had gone and left the premises without asking permission. The evidence further reveals that appellant testified that she was so nervous and upset as a result of the argument that she was unable to return to work and remained at home the following day, September 13. On the morning of September 14, at 7:30 o'clock, the chief operator telephoned to appellant's husband and informed him that his wife had been discharged.

The findings and conclusions of the Board are as follows:

'FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The Board finds claimant was employed by the employer herein for approximately nine years as a telephone operator at the employer's place of business in East Chicago, Indiana; that on September 12, 1957, claimant was informed by the chief operator that commencing September 16, 1957, and for one week, claimant would be required to go to the employer's office in Gary, Indiana, for one week's training; that claimant had been away from her employment two weeks prior to September 12, 1957, but did have knowledge that she would be required to take said training in the City of Gary.

'The Board further finds that claimant made no attempt to gain permission to leave her job on September 12, 1957, and that there is no evidence of probative value that claimant could reasonably believe that she had been discharged. Claimant remained at home the following day and on September 14, 1957, claimant herself testified that she was getting ready to go to work when her husband received a telephone message that she had been discharged.

'The Board concludes that claimant was unreasonable in persisting that the employer arrange its business operations to conform with claimant's time to take care of her personal affairs; that claimant's actions were of such a nature as to constitute an intentional and wilful disregard of the employer's interest and she was properly discharged for misconduct in connection with her employment on September 14, 1957.

'Decision: The decision of the referee affirmed.'

We are at a loss to determine from the findings and conclusions of the Board the grounds upon which the Board found that appellant was guilty of misconduct in connection with her work. The first paragraph of the Board's findings and conclusions merely states the fact of her nine years' employment and that she had been notified that she would be required to take a week's training in Gary commencing September 16. The second paragraph contains two negative...