C.G., LLC v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development
946 N.E.2d 599
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- CG operates three auto parts plants and faced nationwide workforce reductions due to sharp economic decline.
- CG offered Enhanced Voluntary Termination of Employment Program (EVTEP) in late 2008 and early 2009 with substantial incentives.
- EVTEP required participants to resign and relinquish recall and seniority rights; it was not tied to a specific plant layoff.
- Employees participating in EVTEP included both active workers and those laid off; some received unemployment benefits prior to EVTEP and others had benefits terminated.
- The ALJ and Board differing on eligibility; the Board applied 22-4-14-1(c) to deny benefits, leading CG to appeal.
- Indiana Court of Appeals ultimately reversed and remanded, holding EVTEP was not shown to be offered to avert or lessen a layoff at the Employees' plants under 22-4-14-1(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EVTEP was offered to avert or lessen a layoff under 22-4-14-1(c). | CG contends EVTEP was not offered to avert/lessen layoff at the Employees' plants. | Employees argue EVTEP could be analyzed under the statute to grant benefits despite layoff context. | EVTEP was not offered to avert/lessen a layoff; 22-4-14-1(c) does not authorize benefits. |
| Whether the Board properly applied 22-4-14-1(c) to deny benefits. | CG argues the Board misapplied the statute to these facts. | Employees contend the Board's interpretation supported eligibility under the statute. | Board's application of 22-4-14-1(c) was erroneous; the statute does not support benefits here. |
Key Cases Cited
- York v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 425 N.E.2d 707 (Ind.Ct.App.1981) (retirement for personal reasons due to risk not entitled to benefits)
- Trelleborg YSH, Inc. v. Bd. of Ind. Dept. of Workforce Dev., 798 N.E.2d 484 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (optional layoff under inverse seniority may yield eligibility for benefits)
- S.A. v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Dept. of Workforce Dev., 936 N.E.2d 336 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (acceptance of early retirement where unemployed did not demonstrate good cause)
- Cooper Indus., LLC v. City of South Bend, 899 N.E.2d 1274 (Ind.2009) (statutory construction guiding interpretation of enactments)
- Wasylk v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 454 N.E.2d 1243 (Ind.Ct.App.1983) (unemployment benefits for involuntary unemployment; lack of work principle)
- LTV Steel Co. v. Griffin, 730 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind.2000) (statutory construction with respect to unemployment provisions)