Stanrail Corp. v. Unemployment Insurance Review Board

Attorney for Appellant
Patrick B. McEuen
Singleton, Crist, Austgen & Sears
Munster, IN
Attorneys for Appellee
Karen M. Freeman-Wilson
Attorney General of Indiana
Christopher L. Lafuse
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, IN
Appellee Pro Se
Thomas Pierce
Gary, Indiana
IN THE
INDIANA SUPREME COURT
STANRAIL CORP.,
Appellant,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
REVIEW BOARD, et. al.
Appellee.
)
) Court of Appeals No.
) 93A02-9911-EX-765
)
)
)
)
)
)
APPEAL FROM THE REVIEW BOARD of the
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
Cause No. 9924-7099-R-615
DISSENT FROM DENIAL OF PETITION TO TRANSFER
May 30, 2001
Sullivan, J., dissenting from denial of transfer.
In this case, the record indicates that an employee was dismissed
pursuant to his employer’s attendance policy when he failed to call in the
fact that he was going to be absent on two days. The employee then sought
unemployment compensation. Under the Unemployment Insurance Act (“Act”),
an employee can be terminated for "just cause," and lose unemployment
compensation through the "knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly
enforced rule of an employer." Ind. Code § 22-4-15-1(d)(2). Here the
Court of Appeals held that it had been reasonable for the employer to
dismiss the employee for not calling in the fact that he was going to be
absent. Stanrail Corp. vs. Unemployment Insurance Review Board, 734 N.E.2d
1102 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
This determination by the Court of Appeals appears to have been
correct and I would affirm it. However, I would grant transfer to address
an issue in this case identified by the Unemployment Insurance Review Board
(“Board”).
The rule under which the employee was terminated here was a “no-fault”
attendance policy maintained by his employer. The policy assigned a
certain number of demerit points to various types of attendance violations;
when a minimum number of demerit points are accumulated, a specified
sanction is imposed. An employee accumulating more than 500 demerit points
was subject to immediate termination. Here 100 demerit points were
assigned whenever an employee missed work for whatever reason and 300
demerit points were assigned for being absent without reporting. On an
annual basis, each employee was entitled to five sick days, two personal
business days, two periods of three or more days for illnesses requiring
medical treatment, and accrued vacation days. Under the policy, an
employee could accumulate sufficient demerits to be discharged simply by
being sick on more than five (non-consecutive) days through no fault of his
or her own.
The Board believes that violations of such “no-fault” attendance
policies do not constitute “just cause” for termination under the Act. The
Board contends that the purpose of the Act is to provide payment to persons
unemployed through no fault of their own and that the effect of denying
benefits to persons dismissed for violating no-fault attendance policies is
to deny benefits to persons who miss work through no fault of their own.
The Legislature has declared it to be the public policy of the State
"to provide for payment of benefits to persons unemployed through no fault
of their own." Indiana Code § 22-4-1-1. I believe we should grant
transfer to make clear that benefits cannot be denied to an employee
dismissed for absence due to legitimate illness where the attendance rule
at issue does not provide sufficient time off for legitimate illness. To
do otherwise denies benefits to persons who miss work through no fault of
their own in contravention of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
However, as noted at the outset, I agree that the employee here is not
entitled to relief. While the Unemployment Insurance Review Board believed
the employer's attendance policy was unreasonable in that it did not allow
employees sufficient time off for legitimate illnesses, the employee
terminated here was not the victim of the no-fault provision: he was at
fault for not reporting in as required.
BOEHM, J., concurs.