Boudreaux v. Louisiana Bd. of Review, Dept. of Employment Sec.
| Decision Date | 04 September 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 63632,63632 |
| Citation | 374 So.2d 1182 |
| Parties | Paul J. BOUDREAUX, Plaintiff-Appellant-Relator, v. LOUISIANA BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, State of Louisiana, Administrator of the Department of Employment Security, State of Louisiana and Vinson Guard Service, Defendants-Appellees-Respondents. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Robert H. Fray, White, Fray & White, Gretna, for plaintiff-appellant-relator.
James McGraw, Marion Weimer and James A. Piper, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellees-respondents.
The administrative board held that the plaintiff employee was disqualified from receiving benefits because he "left his employment without good cause connected with his employment." La.R.S. 23:1601(1). The court of appeal affirmed the district court's rejection of his application for judicial review of this determination, one judge dissenting. 363 So.2d 1258 (La.1978).
On the plaintiff's application, we granted certiorari, 366 So.2d 560 (La.1979), because we entertained doubt that, as a matter of law, the board of review of the agency was correct in finding that the employee's reason for leaving his employment was not "good cause Connected with his employment." 1
The agency record and the evidence taken at the agency hearing show:
The plaintiff had initially become unemployed through no fault of his own. On March 4, 1976, he accepted employment at $2.36 per hour with the Vinson Guard Service. Until March 28, he was employed at Avondale, near his home. On that date, he was transferred to serve as guard at Good Hope, which required a round trip of 48 miles daily to commute from his home. His automobile was "in bad shape", and this daily round trip proved to be too expensive in relation to the pay earned.
After nearly two months, on May 20 he asked his supervisor for a transfer to a work area he could reach without this unduly great expense. His supervisor told him to keep working until the supervisor could find him a new position. The employee did so until June 9, when he ceased his employment because no nearer position had been found and because he could not afford to continue commuting to the Good Hope work area.
The plaintiff's application for unemployment compensation was denied. The appeals referee found the above facts and the further fact: "The employer did not promise to furnish transportation." The referee concluded: 2
In Bateman v. Howard Johnson Co., 292 So.2d 228 (La.1974), a short-order cook had been administratively disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation because she quit work due to lack of available economical transportation employed for five hours daily at $1.93 per hour, she was forced to take a taxi home nightly at a cost of $3.80, about 40% Of her wages. Rejecting contentions similar to the present, this court held that this reason for quitting employment was "good cause connected with" employment, so as to justify the payment of unemployment compensation to an employee who terminated his job for such reason.
We held that, under the circumstances there reflected, the reason for quitting work was not merely a personal (and thus disqualifying) one.
In reaching this conclusion, we relied upon a provision in the same unemployment compensation statute which provides that an employee should not be disqualified for refusing to accept employment offered which is not "suitable" because of "the distance of the available work from his residence." La.R.S. 23:1601(3)(a). In substance, we held that it is good cause connected with employment for an employee to quit his job when the work becomes Un suitable within the meaning of the statute due to unanticipated working conditions. See also, to same effect, Haskett v. Brown, 165 So.2d 25 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1964), when the Change in transportation availability after initial hiring made the employment unsuitable and, therefore, a good cause connected with the employment for resigning from the work.
Where transportation is unavailable or available only at prohibitive cost, it may render the employment unsuitable. Johnson v. Administrator, Division of Employment of Security, 166 So.2d 366 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1964); Immel v. Brown, 143 So.2d 156 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1962).
In the absence of a finding that the initial employment agreement specifically contemplated that the employee provide transportation for himself to a work-site 48-miles round-trip from his home, we find that, under the circumstance, the plaintiff-employee left his job for good cause connected with his employment. The circumstances we rely upon are: the plaintiff's employment at $2.36 per hour; his transfer to a post 48-miles round-trip from his home after his initial employment; and the unavailability at reasonable cost of adequate available transportation to his changed and far more distant work-site. As stated by the dissenting judge in the court of appeal, "under these circumstances, . . . (the) plaintiff's employment was unsuitable, and . . . he had left his employment for good cause." 363 So.2d 1261.
The plaintiff is thus entitled to unemployment compensation benefits.
For the reasons assigned, the judgments of the district and intermediate courts dismissing the plaintiff's suit are reversed, and the case is remanded to the defendant board of review for it to enter an order in accordance with the ruling of this court. La.R.S. 23:1634.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SUMMERS, C. J., dissents for the reasons assigned.
Paul J. Boudreaux was employed as a security guard (watchman) by Vinson Guard Service on March 4, 1976. He was first assigned to a post in Avondale which was in close proximity to his residence. On March 28, 1976 he was transferred to an assignment in Good Hope which was twenty-four miles from his residence. He did not refuse this assignment, but after two and a half months he notified his employer that it was no longer practicable for him to travel from his residence to Good Hope because his car was in poor condition and the additional expense was not justified by the salary he was receiving from Vinson. He requested a transfer to a position closer to his residence, but the company had no such position available at that time. Boudreaux therefore resigned from his job on June 9, 1976. Because he was unable to secure other employment, he applied for unemployment compensation.
After an administrative hearing on his request, Boudreaux was denied compensation on the ground that he left his job because of personal reasons which did not constitute "good cause connected with his employment" as required by Section 1601(1) of Title 23 of the Revised Statutes, the Louisiana Unemployment Security Law. In pertinent part Section 1601(1) provides: "An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: (1) If the administrator finds that he has left his employment without good cause connected with his employment." Boudreaux thereafter filed a petition in the Twenty-fourth Judicial District Court for review of the administrator's decision to deny unemployment compensation pursuant to his request. The district court denied Boudreaux's claim.
On appeal to the Fourth Circuit the attorney for the Office of Employment Security submitted the matter on behalf of the Administrator on the record and brief filed by Boudreaux's attorney. Nevertheless the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the trial court, because Boudreaux testified that he knew in advance he could be assigned to a post in Good Hope, the Court of Appeal concluded his reasons for leaving his employment were personal and not "connected with his employment," as required for eligibility for unemployment compensation under the terms of Section 1601(1) of the Louisiana Unemployment Security Law. 363 So.2d 258. Boudreaux's application for certiorari was granted by this Court. 366 So.2d 560.
On this review Boudreaux complains that it was error for ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Banks v. Administrator of Dept. of Employment Sec. of State of La.
... ... No. 80-C-1588 ... Supreme Court of Louisiana ... Jan. 26, 1981 ... Randy Hillhouse, North La. Legal Assistance Corp., ... WATSON, Justice ... This is a suit for judicial review of an administrative determination that plaintiff is not entitled to unemployment compensation ... 4 Cir. 1980); Turner v. Brown, 134 So.2d 384 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1961); Boudreaux v. Louisiana Board of Review, 374 So.2d 1182 (La., 1979) ... The word "misconduct" ... ...
-
Ward v. Blache
...645 (La.App. 5th Cir.1983); Boudreaux v. Louisiana Board of Review, 363 So.2d 1258 (La.App. 4th Cir.1978), reversed on other grounds 374 So.2d 1182 (La.1979). The doctrine of peremption, first discussed in Guillory v. Avoyelles Ry. Company, 104 La. 11, 28 So. 899 (1900), has repeatedly been......
-
Giss v. Sumrall
... ... Employment Security of theDepartment of Labor, ... State of Louisiana, Defendant-Appellee, ... Arkansas Louisiana Gas ... , Administrator of the Division of Employment Sec. of the Dept. of Labor, State of Louisiana ... reversing the decision of the Board of Review of the Office of Employment Security denying the ... 3 Cir. 1961); Boudreaux v. Louisiana Board of Review, 374 So.2d 1182 ... ...
-
Plunkett v. Administrator, Louisiana Office of Employment Sec.
... ... Review disqualifying Murl Plunkett, the claimant-appellant, from receiving unemployment benefits. The ... Nason v. Louisiana Dept". of Employment Sec., 475 So.2d 85 (La.App. 2d Cir.1985), writ den., 478 So.2d 149 (La.1985) ... \xC2" ... LSA-R.S. 23:1601(3)(a); 3 Boudreaux v. Louisiana Bd. Of Review, 374 So.2d 1182 (La.1979). However, this determination is predicated ... ...