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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT