Alabama Dept. of Indus. Relations v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 28 March 1961 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 753 |
| Citation | 128 So.2d 532,41 Ala.App. 267 |
| Parties | ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS v. Clara ANDERSON. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
J. Eugene Foster and Richard S. Brooks, Montgomery, for appellant.
Thos. C. Pettus, Moulton, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the Director of Industrial Relations from the judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of Lawrence County in favor of Clara Anderson, the claimant for unemployment compensation.
It appears from the record that Clara Anderson had been an employee of Moulton Manufacturing Company for something over four years. She worked as a presser pressing what is termed in the record as lapels on shirts.
On the last day of February 1958, she was laid off from work. At previous times she and other workers had been laid off temporarily when work was slack.
However, two weeks later she was told that she had been discharged for turning in false production records.
The State Employment Service Representative came to Moulton every two weeks from Decatur. Upon learning of her discharge, Clara Anderson 'signed up' with him and reported she was available for work. She thereafter filed her claim for unemployment compensation with the service representative every two weeks and reported to him that she was willing to accept employment.
The claimant Clara Anderson, lived at Chalybeate Springs a community some six to eight miles from Moulton. She went through the eight grade in school. Prior to her employment with the Moulton Manufacturing Company, she had never done any type of work other than home chores.
At the time of filing her initial claim for benefits on 8 March 1958, the statements of the claimant and of her employer as to the reasons for claimant's separation from her work were in conflict and the matter was referred to an appeals referee for a hearing. The referee disqualified the claimant for unemployment benefits because of her having been discharged for a dishonest act committed in connection with her work.
The referee's decision was appealed to the Board of Appeals, which body affirmed the decision of the referee. The Board of Appeals further disqualified the claimant under Sec. 213, subd. C, Tit. 26, Code of Alabama 1940, we presume on the grounds that the Board of Appeals did not consider the claimant to be available for work.
The claimant then perfected her appeal to the Circuit Court of Lawrence County, and that court entered a judgment in claimant's favor and found her entitled to unemployment compensation.
In the Circuit Court the facts which have been mentioned above were developed by the evidence. The contention that the claimant had been discharged for a dishonest act was abandoned in the Circuit Court, and the defense was solely upon the ground that the claimant was not available for work within the meaning of the unemployment compensation act. In fact, the brief for appellant 'admits for the sake of this appeal that the claimant was an efficient worker and was not guilty of a dishonest act in connection with her work.'
It further appears that Mr. Sol Begner who testified in the two hearings in the department, was no longer with the Moulton Manufacturing Company and no longer living in Moulton. It also appears that at these two hearings the claimant was not represented by counsel, and presented no witnesses other than herself. In the trial in the Circuit Court the claimant presented several of her co-workers who testified to the effect that the claimant had never turned in any false production records. The claimant herself has steadfastly denied any falsification of her records in all of the proceedings including the trial in the Circuit Court.
The record also shows that the claimant made no effort to secure employment other than reporting her availability to the service representative.
It was claimant's contention that there was only one other plant in Moulton that employed pressers, and this was an undergarment factory. Claimant stated that she did not apply there for the reason that she would have had to disclose that she was discharged from the Moulton Manufacturing Company for an alleged dishonest act. She also maintained that she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
London v. Board of Review of Dept. of Employment Sec.
...can not be applied uniformly. The Court of Appeals of Alabama discussed this problem in Alabama Department of Industrial Relations v. Anderson, 41 Ala.App. 267, 128 So.2d 532 (1961). Clara Anderson was discharged from her employment as a presser in a garment factory at Moulton, Alabama. The......
-
Employers Nat. Ins. Co. v. Parker
...to sue from the insurer which has already denied there is any policy of insurance in force? See Alabama Department of Industrial Relations v. Anderson, 41 Ala.App. 267, 269, 128 So.2d 532 (1961). The fact is that the insurer was advised in a letter from insured's attorneys that suit was bei......
-
Polk v. State, Dept. of Indus. Relations
...for work cannot be laid down. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In Alabama Department of Industrial Relations v. Anderson, 41 Ala.App. 267, 128 So.2d 532 (1961) the court followed Tomlinson, supra, in holding that a person seeking unemployment benefits must show that......
-
Heatherly v. Campbell
...Each case must be judged on its own facts and circumstances. Singleton, 364 So.2d at 326; Alabama Department of Industrial Relations v. Anderson, 41 Ala.App. 267, 128 So.2d 532 (Ala.Civ.App.1961). This court has held, however, that the claimant "must at least show that he acted in good fait......