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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT