 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gordon v. Gordon7/28/2000
FOR PUBLICATION
OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION
Appellant-Respondent Benny B. Gordon appeals from the trial court's grant of a protective order requested by Appellee-Petitioner Janet A. Gordon. We affirm.
Benny raises four issues for our review, which we restate as:
1. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to issue a protective order.
2. Whether the allegations of the petition, and the evidence in support thereof, form a sufficient basis for issuance of the protective order.
3. Whether the terms of the protective order are impermissibly vague, ambiguous, and/or overbroad.
4. Whether the portion of the protective order restricting Benny from making any remarks in Janet's presence is too restrictive.
Benny and Janet both work at DePuy Corporation in Warsaw. Janet is married to Benny's brother. Janet filed a petition for a protective order against Benny alleging that "sexual harassment in the workplace has been going on for over five years." Janet indicated that she had requested assistance from DePuy in stopping the harassment, and as a result, Benny was suspended from work for two weeks. Further restrictions upon Benny were dissolved after he filed a grievance.
In her petition for a protective order, Janet alleged that the sexual harassment manifested itself when Benny followed her and subjected her to sexual, verbal, and mental abuse in the workplace. The petition further alleged various incidents of such abuse.
At the hearing on the petition, Janet testified that Benny's offensive behavior became more subtle after the suspension. Specifically, she testified that his behavior changed from definable acts of abuse to general intimidation.
The trial court granted Janet's petition for a permanent protective order. The order states in pertinent part that Benny must
refrain from abusing, harassing or disturbing the peace of [Janet] by either direct or indirect contact at their mutual place of employment and that [Benny] shall not speak to or make bodily contact with [Janet] and shall make no remarks in her presence not compelled by the employment situation in which they mutually engage. (R. 41).
Benny contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue the protective order. He argues that his troubles with Janet constitute a "labor dispute" as that term is defined in Ind. Code § 22-6-1-12 and that no Indiana trial court has jurisdiction over this type of dispute absent compliance with Ind. Code § 22-6-1-1 et seq (the "Anti-Injunction Act).
When equitable relief is sought in the context of a controversy involving labor relations, the trial court must "initially inquire as to whether the Anti-Injunction Act has withdrawn the court's jurisdiction to grant the desired remedy." International Union of Operating Engineers v. Beck, 669 N.E.2d 441, 443 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). The Anti- Injunction Act specifically provides that no Indiana court "shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order . . . in a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, except in strict conformity with the provisions of this chapter." Ind. Code § 22-6-1-1. A "labor dispute" includes "any controversy concerning terms or conditions of employment . . . ." Ind. Code § 22-6-1-12. It is well-settled that " he most cursory reading of the [Anti-Injunction Act] is sufficient to convince one that it is predicated in its entirety upon the existence of a labor dispute and if none exists it has no application." Local Union No. 135, Affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters et. al. v. Merchandise Warehouse Co., 127 Ind.App. 57, 132 N.E.2d 715, 71
Page 1 2 3 4 Indiana Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|