 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Talley v. Coe Manufacturing Company3/21/2003
Judgment: Affirmed.
. This accelerated calendar case submitted on the briefs of the parties concerns an administrative appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas. Appellant, the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services ("the ODJFS"), appeals from the judgment of the trial court reversing the decision of the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission ("the review commission") as being unlawful, unreasonable and against the manifest weight of the evidence. According to the review commission, appellee, Jerry Talley, was disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits because he was discharged for just cause in connection to his employment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the reversal by the trial court.
. By way of background, appellee was employed with Coe Manufacturing Company ("Coe Manufacturing") in the foundry department as a sand mixer and a laborer since June 1984. However, on June 10, 2000, appellee was discharged for violating a provision of the labor-management contract relating to excessive garnishments. Specifically, Coe Manufacturing had a contract with the United Steelworkers of America, Local 12833, which provided that if an employee had more than two garnishments filed against him/her in a one-year period, then that employee was subject to discharge:
. "[Section] 17.09: If an employee has more than two (2) garnishments (the legal attachment of an employee's wages from the Company at the instigation of a third party) within any twelve (12) months period during the life of this Contract, he shall be subject to immediate discharge without recourse to the provisions of Article 4 -Grievance procedure."
. In implementing this garnishment rule, it was the practice of Coe Manufacturing to consider garnishments from the same creditor as constituting only one garnishment. However, such an application of the garnishment rule was not reflected in the labor-management contract.
. According to Louis Falk ("Mr. Falk"), the director of human resources for Coe Manufacturing, the purpose of the garnishment rule was to avoid hardship and inconvenience on the accounting department:
. "Q: [on cross-examination by appellee's counsel] Okay. Could you tell us what the purpose of the rule for garnishment is?
. "A: That contract provision has been in effect for more than the 27, 28 years I've been with Coe Manufacturing. So its initial placement in the contract, I can't comment on. I can't comment on some of the things because repeated garnishments and wage attachments and so on are a hardship, and inconvenience and a time consuming thing to the accounting people in payroll department. And I'm sure part of the reason is for that is to put a restriction on that and have no more than a certain limited number to avoid that sort of inconvenience and so on."
. Mr. Falk, however, was unable to provide the cost Coe Manufacturing incurred for processing the garnishment:
. "Q: Okay. What is the cost of the garnishment?
. "A: I couldn't tell you the cost. What do you mean, for processing?
. "Q: Yes.
. "A: I have no idea."
. During his period of employment, appellee suffered a back injury which kept him out of work for a significant amount of time and resulted in him accumulating many bills. Appellee subsequently incurred three garnishments from three different creditors during a twelve month period, to wit: January 31, 2000, May 8, 2000 and May 16, 2000.
. After the issuance of the second garnishment on May 8, 2000, appellant retained an attorney on May 10, 2000, for the purpose of fil
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|