American Sugar Refining Co. v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 30 November 1959
• Docket Number: No. 21416,21416
• Citation: American Sugar Refining Co. v. Taylor, 115 So.2d 898 (La. App. 1959)
• Parties: AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING COMPANY v. Wilbert J. TAYLOR and Richard E. Brown, Jr., Administrator, Division of Employment Security, State of Louisiana.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana

Page 898

115 So.2d 898

AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING COMPANY v.Wilbert J. TAYLOR and Richard E. Brown, Jr., AdministratorDivision of Employment Security, State of Louisiana.

No. 21416.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Orleans.

Nov. 30, 1959.

Chaffe, McCall, Phillips, Burke, & Hopkins and William E. Crawford, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

L. D. Dunbar, Baton Rouge, for Richard E. Brown, Jr., Adm'r, Division of Employment Security, defendant-appellee.

Wilbert J. Taylor, defendant-appellee, absent and unrepresented.

Before JANVIER and T. McBRIDE, JJ., and JESS JOHNSON, J. pro tem.

McBRIDE, Judge.

This is an appeal taken by The American Sugar Refining Company pursuant to LSA-R.S. 23:1634 of the Louisiana Employment Security Law to review a judgment of the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, which ordered the Administrator, Division of Employment Security, to pay Wilbert J. Taylor, a former employee of appellant, unemployment compensation benefits as provided for by said law (LSA-R.S. 23:1471 et seq.).

The facts are not disputed.Taylor was discharged from his employment by The American Sugar Refining Company for having permitted three garnishments to be issued by his creditors against his wages in violation of a rule posted by The American Sugar Refining Company on April 1, 1954.Taylor made application for unemployment compensation benefits to which a protest was lodged by The American Sugar Refining Company, which alleged that his violation of the rule against garnishments constituted misconduct connected with his employment within the meaning of the provisions of LSA-R.S. 23:1601, as amended, which in part reads as follows:

'An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:

(2) If the administrator finds that he has been discharged for misconduct connected with his employment.* * *'

The appellant's interest to oppose its employee's claim arises from the fact that its contributions to the unemployment compensation fund would be increased in the event benefits under the act are paid, as the amount of the benefits paid are charged against the employer's experience rating record.

The American Sugar Refining Company's rule against excessive garnishments and the alleged violations thereof by Taylor are accurately set forth in the findings of the Appeal Referee for the Division of Employment Security as follows:

'* * * The Employer has a strict rule regarding garnishments.When an employee is garnisheed, the individual is called in and cautioned about the matter and is asked to take action to have the garnishment dropped.When a second garnishment is received, the individual is given five days in which to have the garnishment dropped and is also given a five-day suspension.If a third garnishment is received, the individual is given five days in which to satisfy the garnishment.If the garnishment is not satisfied within the designated time, separation occurs.When an individual satisfies a garnishment or has a garnishment dropped the garnishment is not then held against the individual and does not count if other garnishments are levied.The claimant was garnisheed during 1956, and was cautioned about the matter.The garnishment was not dropped.A second garnishment was received in 1956, and the claimant was given a five-day suspension.During February, 1957, another garnishment was received by the company.However, on this occasion, the claimant took action to have the garnishment dropped.The garnishment was satisfied until July, 1958, when it was again made effective.The claimant was then called in and was given one month in which to have the garnishment dropped.The amount involved in the garnishment was $81.82.When the claimant failed to have the garnishment satisfied, the company terminated the claimant. * * *'

Taylor's application was first passed upon by the Division of Employment Security which determined that he had been discharged for misconduct connected with the employment and was thus disqualified from receiving benefits.However, the Division subsequently issued a redetermination ruling to the effect that the claimant was eligible for benefits as of August 19, 1958, which ruling was in turn affirmed by the Appeal Tribunal for the Division of Employment Security and then by the Board of Review.The American Sugar Refining Company having exhausted all administrative remedies, feeling aggrieved, then took the present proceeding for a judicial review of the decision of the Board of Review impleading Taylor and the Administrator, Division Employment Security, as defendants.After a hearing of the matter on the findings of fact made by the Board of Review, which are deemed conclusive, the trial judge dismissed the suit holding:

'* * * The Board of Review ruled correctly in holding that the violation of the Employer's rule with reference to garnishments did not constitute 'misconduct' within the meaning of LSA 23:1601.'

The American Sugar Refining Company contends before us that the Board of Review and his honor below erred in awarding compensation benefits to Taylor for the reason that, because guilty of a breach of the rule against garnishments, his actions constituted misconduct connected with his employment within the contemplation of the statute and gave rise to his discharge.

From other evidence appearing from the record, it appears that Taylor well knew of the employer's rule and that The American Sugar Refining Company made an advance on wages earned endeavoring to assist him in clearing up the last garnishment.It is also shown that The American Sugar Refining Company has more than 1,000 employees, and that by estimation a single garnishment against an employee would cost on an annual basis approximately $35 in expenses, to say nothing of attendant vexations and inconvenience.

The question is: Do the facts establish misconduct on the part of the employee within the intendment of the statute?

We agree with what our brothers of the Second Circuit said in the case of Sewell v. Sharp, La.App., 102 So.2d 259, 261:

'* * * 'Misconduct' is...