ILNews

In issue of first impression, COA reverses union decision

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Following denials from a union officer, three union panels and a trial court, three former union employees successfully convinced the Indiana Court of Appeals that they are entitled to payment for their accrued vacation time. But the COA opinion was not unanimous.

In Commissioner of Labor on the Relation of Stephen R. Shofstall, Edward C. Posey, and Deborah Posey v. Int'l Union of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, CLC District Council 91, No. 49A02-1103-PL-263, three former employees of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades claimed that they should have been paid for their accumulated, unused vacation time when they were terminated in 2008. The union’s business manager/secretary-treasurer denied the request, and the workers filed internal union charges in protest.

The appeals court wrote that in this case, the dispute is not about the union acting as the agent for its members, as the union happens to be the former employer. As such, the court wrote that this is an issue of first impression in Indiana.

A union internal trial board heard the case in 2009 and denied the claims. The former workers – Stephen Shofstall and Edward and Deborah Posey – then took their complaint to the general executive board but were unsuccessful. The three appealed to the union’s general convention, and were again denied their claims. Subsequently, a trial court also ruled in favor of the union.

According to Indiana’s Wage Payment Statute, vacation time is to be considered deferred wages, unless a policy exists to the contrary, the appeals court held. In consulting the union bylaws regarding overall compensation, the COA concluded that employees are entitled to 52 weeks of pay and an additional two weeks of vacation time. The appellate court majority arrived at this opinion based on the use of the word “also” in the bylaws, whereas the union has claimed that the two weeks of vacation time is included in the overall compensation of 52 weeks of pay.

In his dissent, Judge Ezra Friedlander wrote: “The term ‘also’ surely cannot work such mischief as to stand the plain meaning of the relevant bylaws on its head.”

The COA remanded to the trial court for further proceedings, holding that the three appellants are entitled to payment for all unused, accrued vacation time – about $22,079 for Shofstall’s unused 35 days and about $43,820 for the Poseys’ 111 days.


 

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. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT