Batiste v. Brown, 385

• Decision Date: 06 November 1961
• Docket Number: No. 385,385
• Citation: Batiste v. Brown, 134 So.2d 381 (La. App. 1961)
• Parties: George BATISTE v. Richard E. BROWN, Jr., Administrator.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana

Page 381

134 So.2d 381

George BATISTE v.Richard E. BROWN, Jr., Administrator.

No. 385.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Nov. 6, 1961.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 29, 1961.

C. O. Brown, Alexandria, for plaintiff-appellant.

Jerry H. Bankston, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee.

Before TATE, FRUGE and SAVOY, JJ.

SAVOY, Judge.

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the district court maintaining the decision of the Board of Review, Division of Employment Security, Department of Labor of the State of Louisiana, which denied plaintiff unemployment benefits under the provisions of LSA-R.S. 23:1471--1713.

The Board of Review notified plaintiff that he had been disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits for the following reasons:

'You were fired for damaging freight and not reporting it to the company.You missed work without notifying your employer.You failed to report an accident in which you were involved.This is misconduct in connection with your work.'

After receiving the above notice, plaintiff appealed this ruling to the appeals referee.The appeals referee affirmed the finding of the Board with the following opinion:

'Section 1601(2) of the Louisiana Employment Security Law provides that a claimant shall be disqualified when discharged for misconduct connected with employment.Such disqualification shall continue until such time as the claimant has returned to work and earned wages equivalent to ten times the weekly benefit amount, and separation from such employment must be under non-disqualifying circumstances.

'This claimant's discharge seems to have resulted from a series of incidents all of which and any of which might be interpreted as misconduct in connection with the employment.Upon occasion, he would fail to take the proper action relative to damaged freight and then proceeded to inflict property damage with the vehicle under his control and not report same to the employer.It is inconceivable that the claimant could have an accident, however slight, but particularly an accident wherein damages were approximately $100.00, and not be aware of same.His failure to properly report said damage of the employer is viewed by this Referee as misconduct in connection with the employment, and the findings of the Agency are deemed correct.

'It is ordered that the determination of the Agency be affirmed.'

The decision of the Appeals Referee was affirmed by the Board of Review of the Division of Employment Security of the Department of Labor of the State of Louisiana.From this ruling, plaintiff appealed to the district court, which affirmed the decision of the Board of Review.

Plaintiff then appealed to this Court from the judgment of the district court.

The term 'misconduct' is defined in the case of Sewell v. Sharp, La.App. 2 Cir., 1958, 102 So.2d 259, 261, as follows:

'The question is, do the facts establish misconduct upon the part of the plaintiff within the intent of the statute?'Misconduct' is a word of general usage and is not defined in the statute itself.Resort, must, therefore, be made to the generally accepted definitions, such as wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct, motivated by premeditated, obstinate, or intentional purpose.Misconduct, within the meaning of the Unemployment Compensation Act, excluding from its benefits an employee discharged for misconduct, must be an act of wanton or willful disregard of the employer's interests, a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, and a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of his employees.* * *

'We do not think that the term 'misconduct' as used in the Unemployment Compensation Statute, excepting employees discharged for misconduct from the benefits of the statute, should be so literally construed as to effect a forfeiture of such benefits by an employee except in clear instances.The term should be construed in a manner least favorable to working a forfeiture so as to minimize the penal character of the provision by excluding cases not clearly intended to be within the exception.Such appears to be the general rule. * * *'

In 81 C.J.S.Social Security and Public Welfare§ 163, p. 248, dealing with the subject, the following comment is made:

'An employee's deliberate violation of a reasonable rule in connection with his work is sufficient to constitute willful misconduct which, when it results in his discharge, renders him ineligible for unemployment compensation, at least, under some statutes, for a specified period of time.However, if by direct proof or as an inference from the circumstances it appears that an employee's violations of rules, causing his discharge, were the result of thoughtlessness or inadvertence, he is not guilty of willful misconduct rendering him ineligible for unemployment benefits.'

In the case of Burge v. Administrator, Division of Employment Sec.(La.App. 2 Cir., 1955), 83 So.2d 532, plaintiff appealed for judicial review of a ruling by the Board of Review which denied his claim for unemployment compensation.The district court reversed the ruling of the Board of Review and held that plaintiff was entitled to unemployment benefits.The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the district court and re-instated the ruling of the Board of Review.The facts found in that case were that plaintiff was a railroad conductor, that the train he was on was to do some switching and he was flagging on the front end of the train.There were two cars between him and the engineer.As soon as he saw the flag, he gave the signal to the engineer to stop.However, due to a bend in the siding, the engineer could not see the signal in time and did not bring the train to a halt until it had bumped the car on the side.He testified that he did not see the car in time to give the stop signal to the engineer.The Court stated that the engineer's deliberate violation of a reasonable rule in connection with his work was sufficient to constitute willful misconduct and denied him unemployment benefits, the Court finding that a single violation of a safety rule could have grave consequences.

In Sewell v. Sharp, supra, the facts were that plaintiff was employed as a charwoman for the Commercial National Bank in Shreveport, Louisiana.Her contract of employment provided for an annual two-weeks vacation with pay, which vacation for 1957 was scheduled to begin June 30, 1957, on which date, or...