Geckler v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
Decision Date | 01 November 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 30494,30494 |
Citation | 193 N.E.2d 357,244 Ind. 473 |
Parties | Charles E. GECKLER, M. D., Appellant, v. REVIEW BOARD OF the INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION, Douglas J. Morris, William G. Johnson, and Frank C. McAlister, as Members of and constituting the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, and Lorraine Ann Cox, Appellees. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Perry W. Cross, of Dennis & Cross, Muncie, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Keith Campbell, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellees.
The action is before this court on petition to transfer. [See: Geckler v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Sec. Division (Appellate Court 1963) 187 N.E.2d 751.]
Appellee, Lorraine Ann Cox, successfully prosecuted a claim for unemployment benefits against the appellant before the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division.
It is conceded that the appellee voluntarily terminated her employment. The issue presented is whether appellee Cox terminated that employment with 'good cause,' within the terms of the Unemployment Securities Act and the judicial standards established by this court. However, since the only assignment of error herein is that the 'decision of the Review Board is contrary to law,' this court on appeal may only consider (1) whether the findings of fact are supported by some evidence of probative value and (2) whether the facts properly stated are sufficient to sustain the award.
The facts and conclusions, as stated by the Board, are as follows:
notice, was the employer's criticism of the manner in which she operated and maintained the copyflex machine; which criticism upset the claimant because she considered it to be unwarranted and unfair under the circumstances. When the employer informed her that he could get a ten-year-old who could operate the copyflex better than the claimant, she replied that if that's what he wanted, that was what he should have; and that she would just give him notice right then. Also, she testified that although her hours were from 8 a. m. to 5 p. m., she would always get the employer's work handed to her about five to ten minutes to 5:00 and she was to stay there and run those things until they were completed. [Our emphasis.]
'These and other differences between the employer and the claimant made her so nervous that she 'just couldn't take it any longer.' She testified to the referee, that she went home crying every night because she was a nervous wreck. She became convinced that it was impossible for her to perform her work to the satisfaction of her employer.
In this case it is not contended that the facts stated are not supported by some evidence. The remaining question then is whether the facts stated are sufficient to sustain the award.
An analysis of the 'Statement of Facts' discloses that although the Board found that the claimant quit her job because of 'criticism * * * which criticism upset the claimant because she considered it to be unwarranted and unfair under the circumstances,' the Board did not find that such criticism was, in fact, 'unwarranted and unfair.' Also, although the Board alluded to the fact of her working...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, 79-952
...to make every personal subjective reason for leaving a job a basis for disqualification. E. g., Geckler v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Employment Security Div., 244 Ind. 473, 193 N.E.2d 357 (1963). This case is thus distinguishable from Sherbert. Because Thomas left his job for a personal rea......
-
Warner Press, Inc. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
...where an individual voluntarily terminates his employ for good cause in connection with his work. See IC 22-4-15-1; Geckler v. Rev. Bd. (1963), 244 Ind. 473, 193 N.E.2d 357. A subsidiary policy is that the state, through the payment or withholding of benefits, should not be placed in the po......
-
Gray v. Dobbs House, Inc.
...1 (A) PARENTAL OBLIGATIONS We cannot agree with the parental obligation portion of Claimant's argument. In Geckler v. Review Board (1963) 244 Ind. 473, 477, 193 N.E.2d 357, 359 the court 'As a general rule, the cases hold that 'good cause(,)' which justifies the voluntary termination of emp......
-
Martin v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
...religion.For additional cases rejecting personal reasons as good cause in connection with work, see Geckler v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Empl. Sec. Div., (1963) 244 Ind. 473, 193 N.E.2d 357 (sensitive to employer's criticism); Gray v. Dobbs House, Inc., (1976) 171 Ind.App. 444, 357 N.E.2d 900 ......