ILNews

Appeals court upholds arbitration award

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed an arbitration award against Citizens Gas & Coke Utility today, ruling the arbitrator did not exceed her power in determining an employee was unjustly terminated and his widow was entitled to his life insurance policy through the collective bargain agreement.

In Citizens Gas & Coke Utility v. Local Union No. 1400, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 49A05-0612-CV-751, Citizens appealed the trial court's denial of its verified complaint and application to vacate arbitration award, or in the alternative, for the modification or correction of award. Citizens argued the arbitrator, Cynthia Stanley, exceeded her powers by considering an unwritten attendance policy to determine an employee was unjustly terminated and by awarding his widow $75,000 based on a life insurance policy; Citizens also argued Stanley wrongfully refused to hear evidence relating to the controversy.

Russell Hilt began working for Citizens Gas & Coke in 1981. He was severely injured in 1984 while working and missed a great deal of work in the years following the accident. In 1999, Hilt received a verbal warning for absenteeism, and in 2001, Citizens issued a "last chance agreement" that said he must keep an attendance record of 98 percent or better for two years.

In 2003, Citizens and IBEW Local 1400 entered a collective bargaining agreement, which included, "Absence reviews indicating discipline and disciplinary reports for absenteeism/tardiness will be returned to the Union, if, for a period of two years since the most recent absence review indicating discipline or disciplinary report for absenteeism/tardiness in the employee's file, the employee maintains a record with no further discipline for absenteeism/tardiness."

The union understood that to mean a person would start over with a clean slate if there were no more incidents for two years after the report was filed.

In 2003, Hilt's "last chance agreement" was expunged because of successful completion. Shortly thereafter, Hilt went into diabetic shock, fell, and injured his face. Treatment and maintenance of his diabetes caused him to miss a lot of work that same year. On Jan. 14, 2004, Hilt was terminated for absenteeism without any warning. At the time, there was an unwritten attendance policy that said employees were subject to progressive discipline for missing work: verbal; written; decision-making leave; and termination. The union filed a grievance on Hilt's behalf, which his Mrs. Hilt continued after his death in September 2004.

In arbitration, Stanley concluded Citizens did not have just cause for firing Hilt because he had successfully completed the "last chance agreement" and was not given any warnings as required by the unwritten attendance policy. Stanley awarded Mrs. Hilt the life insurance proceeds of $75,000 and other fringe benefits to be paid by Citizens. Citizens requested an additional evidentiary hearing to recalculate money to be paid and to try to prove if Hilt would have been able to actively work during those months after he was terminated, but Stanley denied the hearing. Citizens filed its application to vacate or modify award in Marion Superior Court, which denied the application.

The Court of Appeals affirmed Stanley's award in favor of the union and Mrs. Hilt. Stanley did not exceed her power in determining Hilt was unjustly terminated because the CBA had no provisions on what constituted the type of discipline required for excessive absenteeism. The unwritten policy was made written in 2004 after Hilt's termination and was commonly used by Citizens.

Because Hilt was unjustly terminated, it was well within Stanley's scope to award his widow the fringe benefits that would have been paid to her but for his wrongful discharge. The collective bargaining agreement specifically provided for life insurance, and Stanley ordered Citizens to pay it.

Citizens contends that Stanley violated Indiana Code 34-57-2-13(a)(4) in refusing to hear evidence relating to the controversy. This statute does not allow for the review of a trial court's denial of a party's request for an additional evidentiary hearing, only evidence from the actual arbitration hearing. Citizens had opportunities to present evidence during arbitration or call Mrs. Hilt as a witness, but did not do so.

Finally, the Court of Appeals ruled the necessary evidence to calculate the contractual damages owed to Mrs. Hilt were present at the arbitration via the CBA.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT