Dawe v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division, 19463
| Decision Date | 18 October 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 19463,No. 2,19463,2 |
| Citation | 177 N.E.2d 472,132 Ind.App. 371 |
| Parties | Robert E. DAWE, Appellant, v. REVIEW BOARD OF the INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION, William S. McMaster, William G. Johnson, and Howard Friend, and Members of and as constituting the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division; and Schnacke Manufacturing Company, Appellees |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Sydney L. Berger, Evansville, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Keith Campbell, Bd. of Correction, Indianapolis, Wilbur F. Dassel, Evansville, for appellees.
This was an action brought by the appellant, Robert E. Dawe, against the appellee, Schnacke Manufacturing Company, for benefits under the Indiana Employment Security Act.
The appellant became unemployed on September 18, 1959, and on September 21, 1959, he filed his application for benefits with the Indiana Employment Security Division's local office at Evansville, Indiana. The appellee Schnacke Manufacturing Company filed an Eligibility Information Report contending that appellant left his employment voluntarily without good cause.
The Evansville office of the Indiana Employment Security Division on October 9, 1959, entered a finding and conclusion that appellant quit his employment because he was dissatisfied with a lower rate of pay and that his action constituted quitting voluntarily without good cause. As a result of this conclusion, there was a determination that appellant's benefit rights were suspended as of September 18, 1959, and thereafter until such time as the claimant earns the amount of $360 or more in employment as defined by the Act. The appellant on October 16, 1959, filed a request for a hearing before a referee and a statement of his contention. This hearing was held on October 29, 1959, and as a result of this hearing, Paul B. Newman, the appeals referee of the Indiana Employment Security Division, affirmed the ruling which had previously been made by the Evansville office.
The appellant then filed an appeal of the referee's decision to the Review Board. The appellant did not file a request for permission to introduce additional evidence and the Board did not order the taking of additional evidence. Upon the records and evidence previously submitted, the Board concluded that appellant failed to prove that he had good cause for voluntarily quitting his employment and affirmed the decision of the referee. The appellant prosecutes this appeal assigning as error that the decision of the Review Board is contrary to law.
Sec. 52-1539, Burns' 1951 Replacement (Supp.), provides in part as follows:
'An individual shall be ineligible for waiting period or benefit rights: For the week in which he has left work voluntarily without good cause or has been discharged for misconduct in connection with his work, and for all weeks subsequent thereto until such individual has thereafter earned remuneration equal to not less than ten times his weekly benefit amount in employment as defined in section 1508 [§ 52-1539g] hereof; * * *.'
The evidence in this case clearly shows that the appellant left his employment. Thus, in view of the above statutory language, the primary question presented in this appeal is whether the appellant had good cause to leave his employment.
The findings and conclusions of the Review Board are as follows:
'The Board finds that the claimant was employed by the employer herein for approximately three years.
'It is further found that the claimant voluntarily quit his employment on September 18, 1959, after working only one hour on said date and with no advance notice to his employer.
'It is further found that on February 17, 1958, which was nineteen months prior to his quitting, the claimant suffered an injury to one of his eyes and thereafter, was frequently absent from his employment.
'It is further found that prior to claimant's injury and up to the time of four days prior to his quitting, the claimant was employed as a 'working' group leader at an hourly wage rate of $2.10.
'It is further found that due to the claimant's excessive absenteeism he was removed from the job as a group leader and transferred to the day shift as a machine operator at the wage rate of $1.85 per hour, which was the highest paid rate in his particular group.
'It is further found that the claimant has failed to substantiate his contention that the work at the time of his quitting was too strenuous and injurious to his health.
'It is further found that the claimant failed to give the employer any opportunity to make any possible adjustment in his duties and at the time the claimant quit his job, he had no prospects of other employment.
'The Board concludes from all the evidence that the employer's act in transferring the claimant to another job was reasonable under the circumstances then existing.
'It is further concluded that the claimant has failed in his burden of proving that he had good cause for voluntarily quitting his employment on September 18, 1959.'
The evidence most favorable to the Review Board's decision reveals that the appellant on February 17, 1958, received an eye injury. Subsequent to the injury, the appellant was away from his work and under the care of a physician until March 28, 1958. Appellant was permitted to return to work on that date but was advised by his physician not to lift anything in excess of fifteen pounds. The appellant, prior to his injury and after returning to work, was in the position of a working group leader. After his return to work on March 28, 1958, and until he took a vacation in August of 1959, he was frequently absent from his work. Appellant contended that these frequent absences were due to his eye injury and another injury which occurred when certain cyanide was splashed on him. When appellant returned from his vacation in August 1959, appellee employer reduced him from the position of group leader to that of machine operator. The reason for this reduction was his frequent absences according to the appellee. The change in his position also resulted in a reduction of his hourly wage from $2.10 per hour to $1.85 per hour.
The appellant worked three full days on the new job and, after working one hour on the fourth day, quit. Appellee's foreman testified that appellant asked what his new wage was on the fourth day of the new job and when he was informed that his hourly wage had been reduced to $1.85 per hour the appellant remarked, 'I can't work for that kind of money,'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gardner v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
...of a health reason as good cause for voluntary termination is a fact question for the Board's determination. Dawe v. Review Board (1961), 132 Ind.App. 371, 177 N.E.2d 472; Van Benthuysen v. Review Board (1958), 128 Ind.App. 274, 147 N.E.2d 910. It is similarly a question of fact in determin......
-
Thompson v. Hygrade Food Products Corp.
...Review Board of Indiana Emp. Sec. Div. (1963), Ind.App., 1 Ind.Dec. 604, 606, 191 N.E.2d 525, 527; Dawe v. Review Board of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div. (1961), 132 Ind.App. 371, 377, 177 N.E.2d 472; Massengale v. Rev. Bd. of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div. (1961), 132 Ind.App. 587, 593, 178 N.E.2d The question ......
-
Simmons Co. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division, 20197
...817; Dormeyer Industries v. Review Board, etc., supra, at p. 509 of 133 Ind.App., 183 N.E.2d 351; Dawe v. Review Board of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div. (1961) 132 Ind.App. 371, 377, 177 N.E.2d 472; National Furn. Mfg. Co. v. Review [137 INDAPP 156] Board, etc. (1960) 131 Ind.App. 260, 268, 170 N.E.2d......
-
Goodwin v. BPS Guard Services, Inc.
...from receiving benefits. This analysis is consistent with decisions from other jurisdictions. See, e.g., Dawe v. Review Bd., 177 N.E.2d 472, 475-76 (Ind.Ct.App.1961) (affirming Review Board finding that employee voluntarily quit without good cause following demotion due to employee's absent......