Vicari v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dept. of Employment and Training Services, 93A02-9004-EX-217

• Decision Date: 27 March 1991
• Docket Number: No. 93A02-9004-EX-217,93A02-9004-EX-217
• Citation: 568 N.E.2d 1061
• Parties: Barbara J. VICARI, Appellant, v. REVIEW BOARD OF the INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICES, Michael K. Bonnell, Joe A. Harris, and Nanette L. McDermott, as Members of and constituting the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Employment and Training Services, and Lake County Department of Public Welfare, Appellees.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 1061

568 N.E.2d 1061

Barbara J. VICARI, Appellant, v. REVIEW BOARD OF the INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICES, Michael K. Bonnell, Joe A. Harris, and Nanette L. McDermott, as Members of and constituting the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Employment and Training Services, and Lake County Department of Public Welfare, Appellees.

No. 93A02-9004-EX-217.

Court of Appeals of Indiana Third District.

March 27, 1991.

Rehearing Denied May 15, 1991.

Elizabeth G. Tegarden, Gary, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Preston W. Black, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellees.

HOFFMAN, Presiding Judge.

Claimant-appellant Barbara J. Vicari appeals the decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Employment and Training Services (the Board) denying her claim for unemployment compensation benefits. Vicari presents one issue

for our review: whether IND.CODE Sec. 22-4-15-1(c)(1) (1990 Supp.) violates the constitutional guarantees of equal protection provided by the United States and Indiana constitutions.

Vicari began working as a full-time clerk-typist for the Lake County Department of Public Welfare (LCDPW) on June 6, 1988. Due to personal dissatisfaction with her job, Vicari secured new employment with Pacesetter Steel and submitted a letter of resignation to the LCDPW in September of 1989. Vicari terminated her employment with the LCDPW on September 29, 1989, and began working for Pacesetter Steel as a full-time receptionist on October 2, 1989. On October 26, 1989, Pacesetter Steel terminated Vicari, and she applied for unemployment compensation benefits. The claims deputy denied Vicari's claim, and she instituted an appeal with the appeals referee. After conducting a hearing which Vicari and her LCDPW employer attended, the referee entered findings of fact and conclusions of law affirming the deputy's decision. Vicari appealed the referee's decision to the Board which adopted the referee's findings and conclusions and affirmed the denial of benefits.

The findings and conclusions the Board adopted provide as follows:

"FINDINGS: The claimant worked for this employer for the period from June 6, 1988, to September 29, 1989, as a clerk-typist V. Her rate of pay at the time of separation was five dollars and eighty-nine cents ($5.89) per hour. The claimant was a full-time employee of this employer. The claimant voluntarily left her employment effective September 29, 1989. The claimant submitted a resignation to the employer, dated September 19, 1989, which indicated that her resignation was to be effective September 29, 1989. In the resignation, the claimant did not indicate any reason for her leaving. Work was available for the claimant with the employer at the time of her leaving. The claimant's job was not in jeopardy, as the employer considered the claimant to be a satisfactory employee. The claimant had secured full-time work with Pay Setter [sic] Steel of Saulk Village, Illinois. The claimant worked for Pay Setter [sic] Steel from October 2, 1989, to October 26, 1989, as a receptionist on a full-tme [sic] basis. Her rate of pay with Pay Setter [sic] Steel was seven dollars and ten cents ($7.10) per hour. The claimant left the employment of this employer [LCDPW] because she was unhappy with the work. The claimant felt that other employees placed work on her desk when she was away from her work station. Further, the claimant felt that the distribution of the work was unfair. However, the claimant as a clerk-typist V was to perform typing for employees in other job classifications. The work delegated to the claimant was within her job classification. The claimant met the requirements of her areas of responsibility. Further, the claimant was satisfactory in all areas of her work performance. The claimant was given the opportunity to apply for a transfer to a different floor but was not successful in her attempt. The claimant then left the employment of this employer.

CONCLUSION: From the foregoing findings, it is concluded that the claimant voluntarily left her employment with this employer. It is concluded that the claimant left the employment to accept with another employer previously secured permanent, full-time work which offered a reasonable expectation of betterment of wages; however, the claimant was not employed on the new job for not less than ten weeks. Therefore, it is concluded that modification (c)[ ( ]1[ ) ] to Chapter 15-1 of the Act does not apply in this case. It is concluded that the claimant voluntarily left the employment of this employer because of personal dissatisfaction with her working conditions and without good cause in connection with the work, within the meaning of Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Indiana Employment and Training Services Act.

DECISION: The deputy's determination of November 16, 1989, is, therefore, modified to show the date of separation to be September 29, 1989, and to show the statutory disqualification of Chapter 15, Section 1 of the Act to be effective the week ending September 30, 1989, and as modified, affirmed. The claimant's benefit rights are suspended effective the week ending September 30, 1989, until the claimant has earned remuneration [sic] in employment equal to or exceeding the weekly benefit amount of her claim in each of eight weeks. The claimant's maximum benefit amount is reduced by 25 percent."

Vicari contends that, as...