Court Opinion

ID: 9525521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:04:32.969721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:18.262026
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION
Staton, P.J.
I concur with Judge Sullivan’s rationale that Hacker v. Review Board (1971), 149 Ind. App. 233, 271 N.E.2d 191 is not determinative of the 22-4-15-1 question before us. However, I would dissent from any interpretation of Judge Sullivan’s rationale which would limit or prohibit the traditional employer-employee relationship factor of permitting an employee to place certain conditions upon his or her employment. In Hacker, the employee had placed a condition upon her employment — she would be able to work only on the night shift. This is a working condition. If it is changed by the employer, the employee is entitled to the “good cause” status, since it is a change in connection with the work agreed to be performed by the employee. In the case before us, Mary Gray did not make the hours that she would be willing to work known to her employer nor did she make time of employment a condition of her employment before *457she quit so that it would be connected with her work. An employer is entitled to notice of any factor or condition which will affect the work to be performed by an employee. If this notice is not given on the employment application, as it was in Hacker, or to some supervisor responsible to the employer prior to termination, the traditional employer-employee relationship factor does not exist. The factor must be in connection with the work which is changed and results in a termination.
I would further dissent from any interpretation of Judge Sullivan’s rationale which would exclude domestic or parental obligations from being good cause or a condition that could be connected with work. Judge Sullivan’s rationale is based upon the finding of the Review Board that Mary Gray terminated her employment “. . . due to a lack of aldequate transportation to work and that the cost of cab fare and child care made continuation of employment impractical and that such reasons did not constitute ‘good cause in connection with the work.’ ” He was bound by this finding which is supported in the record. Had the Review Board found that termination was due to a shift change, the result of this opinion, as it affects Mary Gray, would have been different.
Note. — Reported at 357 N.E.2d 900.