employees claim in Indiana

1989The Union in Bridgett argued that the trial court's consideration of the employees defense contravened federal precedent, relying on Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees v. Vevoda, 772 F.2d 530 (Oth Cir.1985).

1987The Union argues that the trial court's determination of the defense contravenes federal precedent, and relies on Milk Drivers and Dairy Employees Union v. Vevoda (9th Cir.1985), 772 F.2d 530 .

2010A. Breach of Contract Claim Pursuant to the Indiana Constitution The non-merit Employees contend that this Court has characterized state employees' claims of constitutional violations by the State in connection with their employment as contractual claims, citing City of Terre Haute v. Brighton, 450 N.E.2d 1039 (Ind.Ct.App.1983), and Bernhardt v. State, 479 N.E.2d 1367 (Ind.Ct.App.1985), trams. denied (1986), two similar cases.

2010The merit Employees cite Dalesandro v. International Paper Co., 214 F.R.D. 473 (S.D.Ohio 2003), claiming that the district court held that the doctrine of futility excused employees who failed to file claims for severance pay under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and that "the ERISA plan's one-year filing deadline did not apply to the non-filers; only the 'statutorily imposed limitations period' was relevant to the non-filers' claims." Appellees' Br. at 32 (quoting Dalesandro, 214 F.R.D. at 482 ).

2010The merit Employees cite Dalesandro v. International Paper Co., 214 F.R.D. 473 (S.D.Ohio 2003), claiming that the district court held that the doctrine of futility excused employees who failed to file claims for severance pay under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") and that "the ERISA plan's one-year filing deadline did not apply to the non-filers; only the 'statutorily imposed limitations period' was relevant to the non-filers' claims." Appellees' Br. at 32 (quoting Dalesandro, 214 F.R.D. at 482 ).

2010Id. (some citations omitted) (emphasis added). 30 *235 Although previously stated in conjunction with our analysis of the merit Employees' claim, it bears repeating that as a general proposition "[a] government employee may sue for violation of employment rights in contract, and the terms and conditions of the employee's contract include all relevant statutory provisions as if such provisions were specifically set out in the contract." Whinery, 819 N.E.2d at 473 .

2010Id. (some citations omitted) (emphasis added). 30 *235 Although previously stated in conjunction with our analysis of the merit Employees' claim, it bears repeating that as a general proposition "[a] government employee may sue for violation of employment rights in contract, and the terms and conditions of the employee's contract include all relevant statutory provisions as if such provisions were specifically set out in the contract." Whinery, 819 N.E.2d at 473 .

2010"Laws having to do with remuneration become part of the employment contract, and so attach themselves as an incident thereof." Id.

2010A. Breach of Contract Claim Pursuant to the Indiana Constitution The non-merit Employees contend that this Court has characterized state employees' claims of constitutional violations by the State in connection with their employment as contractual claims, citing City of Terre Haute v. Brighton, 450 N.E.2d 1039 (Ind.Ct.App.1983), and Bernhardt v. State, 479 N.E.2d 1367 (Ind.Ct.App.1985), trams. denied (1986), two similar cases.

2010The merit Employees need not rely on the existence of a private right of action under the SPA because this suit is a breach of contract action. 26 As such, the State's reliance on Americanos v. State, 728 N.E.2d 895 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied, is misplaced.

2007Id. at 1066 .

2003In Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass'n, 500 U.S. 507 , 111 S.Ct. 1950 , 114 LEd.2d 572 (1991), the United States Supreme Court set forth three guidelines for determining on a case-by-case basis what expenses a union may charge to non-members without impinging upon the nonmembers' First Amendment rights.

2003In Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass'n, 500 U.S. 507 , 111 S.Ct. 1950 , 114 LEd.2d 572 (1991), the United States Supreme Court set forth three guidelines for determining on a case-by-case basis what expenses a union may charge to non-members without impinging upon the nonmembers' First Amendment rights.

2003Citing Ford v. Madison-Grant Teachers Ass'n, 675 N.E.2d 734 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), trams. denied, the Employees claim that this infirmity vitiates the fair share provision.

2003Citing Ford v. Madison-Grant Teachers Ass'n, 675 N.E.2d 734 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), trams. denied, the Employees claim that this infirmity vitiates the fair share provision.

2003See Whitley County Teachers Ass'n v. Bauer, 718 N.E.2d 1181, 1188 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (where fair share provision did not call for non-members to pay full fee, dispute the fee, and then await a refund, Ford was inapplicable), trams. denied. *725 TII Audit of Expenses The Employees claim that the Union failed to have an auditor verify its allocation of non-chargeable expenses for the local Union council, Council 62. 10 The Employees claim that this means that the Union has failed to comply with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hudson, supra. In Hudson, the Supreme Court held that the

2003See Whitley County Teachers Ass'n v. Bauer, 718 N.E.2d 1181, 1188 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (where fair share provision did not call for non-members to pay full fee, dispute the fee, and then await a refund, Ford was inapplicable), trams. denied. *725 TII Audit of Expenses The Employees claim that the Union failed to have an auditor verify its allocation of non-chargeable expenses for the local Union council, Council 62. 10 The Employees claim that this means that the Union has failed to comply with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Hudson, supra. In Hudson, the Supreme Court held that the

2002The failure to pay overtime compensation is a “circumstance, situation, etc. the employee encounters in his employment that reasonably relates to the employment relationship or environment.” Id.

2002Id.

1989The case before us is similar to Bridgett, supra. Here, the Employees' alleged in their answers that they resigned or attempted to resign from the Union prior to the strike. 11 Thus, the Employees' defense of resignation in this case involves the contractual question of whether the Employees were members of the Union at the time of the strike.

1989In Bridgett, supra this court also held that even if the employees defense arguably involved an issue of unfair labor practice governed by §§ 7 and 8 of the NLRA, the trial court still had jurisdiction to hear the defense.

1988Although Clark and Werblo v. Hamilton Heights School Corp. (1988), Ind.App., 519 N.E.2d 185 , would previously have been dispositive in barring the Employees' claim, these cases have been overruled to the extent that they held that the ITCA notice-of-claim provision applies to § 1983 suits in our courts.

1957In Guiliano v. O'Connell's Sons (1927), 105 Conn. 695 , 136 Atl. 677 , 56 A.L.R. 504 , the employers, while engaged in building a road, rented a barn in the vicinity of the job, and gave the employees the privilege of sleeping in it if they desired, without charge.

1957In Guiliano v. O'Connell's Sons (1927), 105 Conn. 695 , 136 Atl. 677 , 56 A.L.R. 504 , the employers, while engaged in building a road, rented a barn in the vicinity of the job, and gave the employees the privilege of sleeping in it if they desired, without charge.