Department of Indus. Relations v. Meeks
| Decision Date | 31 March 1959 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 491 |
| Citation | 110 So.2d 643,40 Ala.App. 231 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
| Parties | DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS v. Mary Lou MEEKS. |
J. Eugene Foster and Richard S. Brooks, Montgomery, for appellant.
Love & Hines, Talladega, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of Talladega County awarding the appellee, Mary Lou Meeks, unemployment compensation.
The claim was denied in the administrative processes of the applicable law.
It was stipulated on the trial that the only question involved is whether or not claimant left her work voluntarily without good cause connected with such work. Subsection B, Section 214, Title 26, Code 1940 as amended.
The following tendencies of the evidence are taken from appellant's brief:
'The appellee, Mary Lou Meeks, commenced working for the appellant-employer, Stretch-Tex Company, a textile mill located at Talladega, Alabama, on or about May 28, 1952. She was employed as a winder on the second shift, that is, from 3:00 p. m. to 11:00 p. m. until on or about November 16, 1955, when the Company, as a result of a slack season, felt it necessary to reduce the number of its employees. Rather than to indiscriminately lay off the necessary number of new employees with less seniority than others, the Company offered certain of its older employees, that is, those with sufficient seniority, so as not to be disturbed by the layoff, the opportunity of choosing to be laid off and to draw unemployment compensation benefits, or to continue undisturbed in their regular employment. The appellee was among those employees who chose to be terminated.
'On or about December 12, 1955, there was a substantial increase in the number of orders the Company received and the Company called back to work the appellee and the other employees who had been temporarily laid off.
'At the time appellee was called back, she was placed on the Company's first shift and assigned to winding, the same job she had when she was laid off on November 16, 1955. She worked on the first shift until on or about April 15, 1956, when she was transferred back to the second shift, the shift she initially worked on when first hired. At the time of this transfer she stated that she thought she would prefer working on the second shift, because, since her husband worked on the first shift, the new hours of work would make it possible for one of them to be with their children at all times when they were at home from school. Appellee worked on this shift until about five or ten minutes of 4:00 o'clock on the afternoon of May 17, 1956.
'On said afternoon, when appellee reported to her work, she found no yarn on her looms. She did not notify her supervisor that her looms were down, and he did not discover this fact for some forth-five minutes after the shift had started working, when the yarn boy approached him in another section of the mill and informed him that Mrs. Meeks did not have anything on her job and was just standing there mad. The supervisor went to the appellee and told her that she would have to run the frame next to hers, a six-spindle frame, which paid a straight hourly rate of $1.25. He also told her that she would receive 'down time' at the rate of $1.25 per hour for the forty-five minutes her frame was down, but cautioned her not to let this happen again, as it put him in an awkward position to explain why the looms were down.
'Shortly thereafter when the supervisor left, the appellee, while she was still mad, commenced crying and walked off the job. As she walked to the Company's time record clock, she passed the mill Superintendent, who was talking to Mr. Roberts, the President of the mill. The Superintendent asked appellee what was wrong, but she did not answer his inquiry. Later that afternoon the Superintendent telephoned appellee at her home, but was told by her little girl, who answered the telephone that 'She is not here'. The Superintendent then went to the winding department of the mill where he had a conversation with the appellee's sister, Mrs. Jackson. He asked Mrs. Jackson to tell appellee that he would like for her to come out the next morning to see him, or to telephone him. Mrs. Jackson said she was sorry appellee had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re
...Cnty. Health Dep't, 501 So.2d 468 (Ala.Civ.App.1986); Davis v. Hoggle, 392 So.2d 1190 (Ala.Civ.App.1980); Department of Indus. Relations v. Meeks, 40 Ala.App. 231, 110 So.2d 643 (1959); and Morrison v. Department of Indus. Relations, 35 Ala.App. 475, 48 So.2d 72 (1950). The following is ind......
-
Bean v. Employment Sec. Agency
...527; Jenkins v. Heard, La.App. 2 Cir., 92 So.2d 287; Baker v. Sharp, La.App., First Cir., 1959, 110 So.2d 209; Department of Indust. Relations v. Meeks, Ala.App., 110 So.2d 643; Stewart v. Department of Industrial Relations, Ala.App., 114 So.2d Order affirmed. SMITH, KNUDSON, and McQUADE, J......
-
Andala Co. v. Ganus
...Avondale Mills v. Burnett, supra; Henderson v. Department of Industrial Relations, 252 Ala. 239, 40 So.2d 629; Department of Industrial Relations v. Meeks, Ala.App., 110 So.2d 643. Hence, the burden was upon claimant to prove that she left her employment for good cause connected with her wo......
-
Department of Indus. Relations v. Jaco
...all the evidence at the trial upon the theory that appellee is interested in having his judgment affirmed. Department of Industrial Relations v. Meeks, 40 Ala.App. 231, 110 So.2d 643, and cases cited In regard to the Department's first ground of appeal, the only evidence before the trial co......