Glennen v. Employment Division
| Decision Date | 01 June 1976 |
| Citation | 549 P.2d 1288,25 Or.App. 593 |
| Parties | Patricia C. GLENNEN, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION and Oregon Worsted Co., a corporation, Respondents. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Larry Dawson, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner.
Rhidian M. M. Morgan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent Employment Division. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., and W. Michael Gillette, Sol. Gen., Salem.
No appearance for Oregon Worsted Co., a corporation.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and FORT and LEE, JJ.
Claimant appeals from an Employment Appeals Board decision denying her unemployment benefits because she quit work voluntarily without good cause. ORS 657.176(2)(c). 1
The board found that claimant had worked for Oregon Worsted Company for almost nine years, the last four years in the shipping department. During her last week she had been alone in the department because of vacations so she had to do more lifting. Claimant was pregnant but her doctor said she could continue to work as long as she felt good. During that week she had been cautioned because she was not following posted company policy regarding checkout procedures, and then had been suspended for two days after making an error in computing the postage for a package. During her suspension claimant called in and said she was quitting. She then filed a grievance with her union but heard nothing further.
The board disagreed with the referee's finding that claimant had good cause to leave work because of emotional and physical stress and concluded instead that her complaints were mainly temporary in nature and therefore were not good cause for leaving work.
There is substantial evidence in the record to support the board's findings and conclusion. This is not a question of whether misconduct justifies a firing. This court has required that in order to have good cause for leaving work, an employe with grievances about employment must indicate an effort to work out the problems unless the employe can demonstrate that such effort would be futile. Stevenson v. Morgan, 17 Or.App. 428, 522 P.2d 1204 (1974); Cantrell v. Employment Division, 24 Or.App. 215, 545 P.2d 143, Sup.Ct. Review denied (1976). Claimant did not wait until her supervisor returned from vacation, nor did she file a grievance with the union before she quit work. She did not contact her employer during her suspension...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lakeside
... ... The Arizona court also noted another California Appellate Division decision as disapproving of Molano: People v. Hernandez, 264 Cal.App.2d 206, 70 Cal.Rptr. 330 ... ...
-
Barron v. Ward
...to file a union grievance, standing alone, does not require a finding that plaintiff lacked such cause. Glennen v. Employment Division (1976), 25 Or.App. 593, 549 P.2d 1288, the only case cited by defendant for this proposition, does not so hold. Rather, in Glennen, the plaintiff's failure ......
-
McPherson v. Employment Division
...can show that the effort would be futile. Carson v. Employment Division, 25 Or.App. 589, 550 P.2d 463 (1976), Glennen v. Employment Division, 25 Or.App. 593, 549 P.2d 1288 (1976). We cannot escape the impression that the court both recites its limited review of the "factual evaluation" and ......
-
Weidner v. Life Care Centers of America
...St. Barnabas, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 106 Pa.Cmwlth. 191, 525 A.2d 885 (1987); and Glennen v. Employment Div., 25 Or.App. 593, 549 P.2d 1288 (1976). We have said, in one of our decisions in which we denied benefits to an employee who quit after being physically assa......