Court Opinion

ID: 9715407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:04:47.606018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:34.840310
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
dissenting.
Westview, as the employer, had the prerogative to establish working hours, schedules and conditions in the absence of a specific agreement. Jones v. Review Bd. (1980) Ind.App., 399 N.E.2d 844. The shift change and the hour differences involved here were made by the hospital for clearly legitimate economic and business reasons.1 Jones objected to the change upon grounds that she had two small children and her child-care situation did not permit her to work such long hours. Accordingly, Westview met with the Diet Technicians concerned and offered to try to assist with child-care difficulties and to explore lateral transfers to other departments. However, Jones and another employee reported that they were not interested in transferring and that they "could not work for an organization that did not care about them as people". Record at 44. Jones then voluntarily resigned.
Other than the fact that Jones had the benefits of working the same number of shift hours for many years of her employment-at-will, there is no evidence to support the conclusion that the employer and employee had a specific agreement with respect to the shift and to the hours of work. As stated in Wior v. Anchor Industries (1994) Ind.App., *436641 N.E.2d 1275, reh'g denied, although an employment contract may be express or implied, oral or written, one "may not, however, unilaterally bind another to a contract of employment". 641 N.E.2d at 1279. There is no indication that Westview bound itself to continue the hours and shift designation in perpetuity with respect to the at-will employee Jones. For this reason, it is my view that the Board erred in adopting the ALJ's conclusion that there was a contract with regard to Jones' hours. See Wasylk v. Review Bd. (1983) Ind.App., 454 N.E.2d 1243, 1246.
In my judgment, the evidence does not permit a reasonable conclusion that Jones left her employment with good cause. West-view had the prerogative to change the shifts and hours of the Diet Technicians for sound business and medical care reasons. By doing so the hospital did not breach any contractual arrangement with Jones.
I would reverse with instructions to deny unemployment benefits.

. The evidence reflected that the changes would accomplish man-hour savings with regard to staffing and that the twelve hour shifts would afford to the patients the benefit of having contact with the same diet technician for all three meals of each day.