Court Opinion

ID: 9740459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:36:00.606032+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:18.354012
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Gonas, J.
I do not agree with my colleagues in this cause.
It was not the intent of the legislature to give an employer a right to discharge an employee simply due to a garnishment proceeding when they enacted the garnishment law. The legislature did not intend to penalize a person because of his misfortunes.
Our laws regard as imposing an obligation upon the employer to:
*10“ . . . establish certain reasonable rules in order to control excessive processing of garnishments allowed under the present method of collection of bills through the Justice of the Peace system. Section 2-4404 of the Indiana Labor Laws covering Garnishment of Wages, required an employer when ordered by the court, to garnishee the wages of an employee. It is logical then to assume that the employer must establish reasonable rules to keep this process to a minimum.”
The facts upon which this controversy depends are few and substantially undisputed.
There is no showing in the record in this case that the institution of garnishment proceedings in any way was a wanton or willful act disregarding the employer’s interest. The only evidence is to the effect that appellee violated the company rule against garnishment. There is no showing that the violation of this company rule, although it may be proper grounds for discharge, comes within §1501 of the Act to show that said violation of the company garnishment rule was misconduct in connection with the appellee-claimant’s work. In Mandella v. Mariano, 61 R. I. 163, 200 A. 478, 479, “misconduct” is described as follows:
“A transgression of some established a,nd definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior; its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offense, but not negligence or carelessness.” (My emphasis.)
The fact that the institution of the garnishment proceedings caused additional work on the part of the appellant-employer is not in itself an act of misconduct. The law provides many instances in which additional work is caused the employer, but this fact *11alone is not a sufficient reason for the employer’s not complying with the law. To illustrate, the employer must file reports and pay quarterly contributions under the Indiana Employment Security Act. Likewise, the employer is required under the law of the State of Indiana to deduct gross income tax from the employees’ wages. Likewise, the employer deducts Social Security payments from the employees’ wages. All of these instances require additional work on the part of the employer and his personnel, but said additional work in itself is not sufficient reason for the employer to ignore the laws of the State of Indiana and the United States.
I am supported by the weight of authorities as found in Words and Phrases, “Misconduct” Yol. 27 p. 474.
“Harassment of employee by his creditors, which resulted in his discharge, was not ‘misconduct’ precluding recovery of employment security benefits. Jackson v. Administrator of Division of Employment Sec. of Dept. of Labor, La. App., 128 So. 2d 915, 918.
Employee whose wages are garnished and who is discharged from employment because of rule relating thereto is not, as matter of law, guilty of ‘misconduct’ connected with employment disqualifying her from unemployment compensation benefits. Robinson v. Brown, La. App., 129 So. 2d 45, 47.
Where garnishment of employee’s wages, resulting in her discharge because of employer’s rule relating thereto, resulted because of inability to pay creditor because of husband’s lack of earnings, discharge was not result of ‘misconduct’ connected with employment which would disqualify her from unemployment compensation benefits. Robinson v. Brown, La. App., 129 So. 2d 45, 47.
Generally, a single instance of negligence or mistake is not sufficient evidence of ‘misconduct,’ *12so as to require denial of unemployment compensation to employee discharged therefor. Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 296 N. W. 636, 641, 237 Wis. 249.”
The decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division should be affirmed.
Note. — Reported in 185 N. E. 2d 25.