From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. v. Review Bd.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
May 4, 1951
121 Ind. App. 227 (Ind. Ct. App. 1951)

Opinion

No. 18,149.

Filed May 4, 1951.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION — Proceedings To Secure Benefits — Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law — Failure To Find on Material Issue Was Error. — In a proceeding for unemployment compensation where the employer alleged that the claimant had been discharged for misconduct in that, while employed on a piecework basis, she falsified her report on the number of pieces completed, it was error for the Review Board to fail to find whether or not claimant made an incorrect report, and, if so, to find facts from which it could be determined whether or not such report amounted to misconduct in connection with claimant's work. Burns' 1951 Replacement, § 52-1539.

From the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division.

Proceeding for unemployment compensation by Sallie H. Maesch. From an award of compensation, Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, employer, appeals.

Reversed with instructions. By the court in banc.

Joseph J. Daniels; G.R. Redding; Earl J. Stipher; and Baker Daniels (of counsel), all of Indianapolis, for appellant.

J. Emmett McManamon, Attorney General, and Glen F. Kline, Deputy Attorney General, for appellees.


The issue before the Review Board was whether or not claimant, the appellee Sallie H. Maesch, was discharged by her employer, the appellant, for misconduct in connection with her work and thereby became ineligible for waiting period or benefit rights under the provisions of § 1501 of the Indiana Employment Security Act, Burns' 1951 Replacement, § 52-1539.

The Review Board, by a majority of its members, decided that claimant's discharge was not for such misconduct. We are asked to review that decision.

The claimant was employed by appellant on a job in which her compensation was computed on a piecework basis. Evidence was submitted that upon the completion of a job she turned in a report showing the number of pieces completed. A foreman counted the pieces. Another count was made by the foreman, a representative of appellant's personnel department, and a committeeman representing claimant's union. There was testimony that these counts revealed a lesser number than claimant had reported.

Evidence was also introduced that on a previous occasion claimant reported the completion of work on more pieces of work than was revealed by subsequent counts.

Claimant testified that the counts which she submitted were correct and that she had never at any time falsified a ticket.

The Employment Security Act contemplates that the Review Board shall make a finding of facts. Burns' 1951 Replacement, § 52-1542k.

The Review Board, after summarizing the evidence introduced, made what purports to be a finding of facts, but which in our opinion is not such. Much of it consists of arguments, the validity of some of which are questionable, as well as conclusions of law, and there is also some speculation and conjecture.

The misconduct which the employer attempts to show is the reporting by claimant of the completion of more units of work than she actually completed. There is no specific finding as to whether or not claimant made an incorrect report, and if so, of facts from which it can be determined whether or not such incorrect reporting amounted to misconduct in connection with her work.

Decision reversed and cause remanded with instructions to make findings of fact and decision thereon.

NOTE. — Reported in 98 N.E.2d 512.


Summaries of

Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. v. Review Bd.

Court of Appeals of Indiana
May 4, 1951
121 Ind. App. 227 (Ind. Ct. App. 1951)
Case details for

Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co. v. Review Bd.

Case Details

Full title:ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA…

Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana

Date published: May 4, 1951

Citations

121 Ind. App. 227 (Ind. Ct. App. 1951)
98 N.E.2d 512

Citing Cases

Dormeyer Industries v. Review Board of the Indiana Security Employment Division

". . . An assignment of errors that the decision of the review board is contrary to law, shall be sufficient…

Immel v. Brown

When the question has arisen in other jurisdictions, it has been held that the case should be remanded for…