Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ERIC D. ORR Berne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana KATHY BRADLEY Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
Dec 30 2010, 9:39 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
C.S., ) ) Appellant-Defendant, ) ) vs. ) ) REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA ) DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE ) DEVELOPMENT and ESTES EXPRESS LINES, ) ) Appellees-Plaintiffs. )

CLERK

No. 93A02-1005-EX-537

APPEAL FROM THE REVIEW BOARD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT The Honorable Steven F. Bier, Chairperson Cause No. 10-R-1457

December 30, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION FRIEDLANDER, Judge

C.S. applied for unemployment benefits after being discharged by Estes Express Lines (Estes). A deputy in the local office of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (IDWD) determined that C.S. was not entitled to unemployment benefits because Estes established that C.S. was discharged for just cause. C.S. appealed this determination and requested a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Following an evidentiary hearing, the ALJ affirmed the determination of the deputy and concluded that C.S. was discharged for just cause and, therefore, not entitled to benefits. C.S. appealed to the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (the Review Board), which adopted the findings and conclusions entered by the ALJ and affirmed the denial of unemployment benefits. C.S. appeals the determination of the Review Board. We affirm. The facts favorable to the Review Board's determination are that from 1998 to 2009, C.S. worked at Estes's Terminal 94 in Fort Wayne, Indiana as the office manager, which was a salaried position. Her duties included inputting payroll for that facility on what was termed Hub Roster payroll sheets (Hub Roster). On November 4, 2009, Tom Lamb, Estes's district manager, became aware that C.S.'s pay fluctuated from pay period to pay period and a subsequent investigation revealed she was being paid an extra $35 to $70 per week for what C.S. coded on the Hub Roster as "dock work." Transcript at 14. Lamb met with C.S. and Greg Hamilton, the terminal manager, to inquire about the extra pay. Lamb learned that C.S.'s grandson was performing landscaping work at Terminal 94 and that compensation for that work was being paid to C.S. in the manner noted above. With Hamilton's permission, C.S. was "charging a dock work account for the work performed, and adding that Dock Work
2

payment to [C.S.'s] paycheck." Appellant's Appendix at 3.1 This was done notwithstanding a May 1, 2008 written directive from Estes that landscaping contracts should be invoiced as such

Download C.S. v. Review Board.pdf

Indiana Law