Perfection Bakeries, Inc. v. Review Bd., 93A02-0208-EX-661.
Decision Date | 20 February 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 93A02-0208-EX-661.,93A02-0208-EX-661. |
Citation | 783 N.E.2d 736 |
Parties | PERFECTION BAKERIES, INC., Appellant, v. REVIEW BOARD OF the DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT and Frank A. Ellet, Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Larry L. Barnard, Miller Carson Boxberger & Murphy, Fort Wayne, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Christopher C.T. Stephen, Deputy Attorney General of Indiana, Fred O. Towe, Geoffrey S. Lohman, Fillenwarth Dennerline Groth & Towe, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Perfection Bakeries, Inc. (Perfection) appeals the decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (Review Board) affirming and adopting the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)'s determination that Perfection's employees were entitled to unemployment benefits if otherwise eligible because their unemployment was not the result of a labor dispute and because there was no credible threat of a strike. We affirm.
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the Review Board's decision was contrary to law.
Perfection and its route salesmen, who are members of Teamsters Unions 135 and 414 (the Union), had a union-negotiated contract in effect from December 6, 1998 until December 8, 2001.1 Perfection and the Union began negotiations for a new contract on November 6, 2001, when the two sides exchanged proposals. Around that time, union members authorized the Union to call a strike if necessary. The parties met again to continue their discussions on November 14, 2001. Prior to the next scheduled meeting on November 28, 2001, Perfection asked the Union to agree to extend the contract until January 5, 2002 to provide enough time for negotiations and to ensure that Perfection's operations would not be affected during the holidays. The Union refused, confident that an agreement could be reached by December 8. Perfection informed the Union that if an agreement were not reached by the time the contract expired, the employees would not be permitted to return to work. The Union responded by stating that its members would strike if the contract expired without a new agreement.
The parties met on December 5, 2001 and discussed various counter-proposals, but came to no agreement on many significant issues. At the next meeting on Friday, December 7, 2001, Perfection submitted a comprehensive proposal to the Union. The Union offered to discuss and negotiate the terms of the proposal for the remainder of the day and evening, and into the next day if necessary. Perfection, however, told the Union that the proposal was its best and final offer and indicated that if the offer were not accepted by 8:00 p.m. on December 8, the employees would be locked out. The Union told Perfection that it could not comply with the deadline because the employees would not have a chance to vote on the proposal until the Union's next meeting on Sunday, December 9, a day on which no work was scheduled. The meeting adjourned without further negotiation and without resolution.
The Union, which had not accepted Perfection's contract offer by the December 8, 2001 deadline, met as scheduled on December 9. After discussing the situation and Perfection's proposal, the Union decided that its members would report to work as usual on December 10, which evidently was the next scheduled work day. The employees were, however, locked out. The Union began picketing several days later. Mechanics and drivers employed by Perfection, who were covered by different contracts and were not members of the Union, refused to cross the picket lines.2 The Union stopped picketing on December 21, 2001, but its members remained locked out until they returned to work on January 7, 2002 under the terms of the prior contract.
In the meantime, after the lockout began, union member Frank A. Ellet filed a Request for Determination of Eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits, and the Indiana Department of Workforce Development requested a hearing by the ALJ. The ALJ conducted a hearing on February 13, 2002, and issued her decision on April 12, 2002. In particular, the ALJ concluded that the Union's employees were not unemployed due to a labor dispute, and that the employees had not been locked out as a result of a threatened strike, and were therefore entitled to unemployment benefits if otherwise eligible. Perfection appealed to the Review Board, and the Review Board affirmed and adopted the ALJ's decision on June 12, 2002. Perfection now appeals.
The Indiana Unemployment Compensation Act provides that "[a]ny decision of the review board shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact." IND. CODE § 22-4-17-12(a). Review Board decisions may, however, be challenged as contrary to law, in which case the reviewing court examines "the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings of facts." IND.CODE § 22-4-17-12(f). Under this standard, we review determinations of specific or basic underlying facts, conclusions or inferences drawn from those facts, and legal conclusions. McClain v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev., 693 N.E.2d 1314, 1317 (Ind.1998).
trans. denied.
Auburn v. Review Bd. of Ind. Empl. Sec. Div., 437 N.E.2d 1011, 1014 (Ind.Ct.App. 1982). In other words, if an employer locks its employees out while bargaining is in a fluid state in an atmosphere in which a reasonably favorable...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wininiger v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Dep't of Workforce Dev.
...state such that there is no impasse, neither party can declare a labor dispute.Id. (quoting Perfection Bakeries, Inc. v. Review Bd. of Dep't. of Workforce Dev., 783 N.E.2d 736, 740 (Ind.Ct.App.2003)). “In other words, if an employer locks its employees out while bargaining is in a fluid sta......
-
Owen Cty Bd. Com'Rs v. Ind Dept. Workforce, 93A02-0607-EX-562.
...underlying facts, conclusions or inferences drawn from those facts, and legal conclusions. Perfection Bakeries, Inc. v. Review Bd. of Dep't of Workforce Dev., 783 N.E.2d 736, 739 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). Review of the Board's findings of basic fact is subject to a "substantial evidence" standard ......
-
TRELLEBORG YSH v. DEPT. OF WORKFORCE DEV.
..."[a]ny decision of the review board shall be conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact." Perfection Bakeries, Inc. v. Review Bd., 783 N.E.2d 736, 739 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (quoting IND.CODE § 22-4-17-12(a)). The law further provides that when Board decisions are challenged as contrary ......
-
City of Bloomington v. REVIEW BD. OF WORKFORCE DEV.
...underlying facts, conclusions or inferences drawn from those facts, and legal conclusions. Perfection Bakeries, Inc. v. Review Bd. of Dept. of Workforce Dev., 783 N.E.2d 736 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). In the instant case, the relevant facts are uncontroversial. Neither party disputes that Debro was......