Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Saini v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Dep't of Workforce Development

Court of Appeals of Indiana

February 14, 2014

BALDEV R. SAINI, Appellant,
v.
REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT and INTEGRITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS I, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE REVIEW BOARD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT. Steven F. Bier, Chairperson. Cause No. 13-R-2558.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MICHAEL D. HEAD, Katz & Korin, PC, Indianapolis, Indiana.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: GREGORY F. ZOELLER, Attorney General of Indiana; KRISTIN GARN, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana.

FRIEDLANDER, Judge. KIRSCH, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.

OPINION

Page 769

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FRIEDLANDER, Judge

Baldev R. Saini applied for unemployment benefits after voluntarily terminating his employment with Integrity Staffing Solutions (Integrity). A claims deputy in the local office of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development determined that Saini voluntarily left his employment for good cause and therefore was eligible for unemployment benefits. Integrity appealed the deputy's decision to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Division. Following a telephonic hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ), the ALJ reversed the determination of eligibility upon the conclusion that Saini did not voluntarily

Page 770

leave his employment with Integrity for good cause in connection with the work. The ALJ's decision was appealed to the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (the Review Board), which affirmed the ALJ's decision. Saini appeals the Review Board's determination, presenting the following restated issues for review:

1. Did the Review Board err in affirming the ALJ's decision without conducting a hearing to determine whether Saini received adequate notice of the telephonic hearing?
2. Was Saini denied due process in that he was not given an opportunity to appeal billing notices sent to him advising him that he had been overpaid unemployment compensation for which he must provide reimbursement?

We affirm.

The brief underlying facts, as found by the ALJ and adopted by the Review Board, are as follows:

Employer is a temporary staffing agency. Claimant worked for Employer's client, Amazon.com, on April 10, 2013. Claimant was hired to work as a Warehouse Associate earning $11.50 per hour. On April 10, 2013, Claimant called Employer's resignation phone line and resigned from the position for family problems. Therefore, Claimant ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.