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.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?