Haskett v. Brown

• Decision Date: 01 April 1964
• Docket Number: No. 10144,10144
• Citation: 165 So.2d 25
• Parties: T. D. HASKETT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard E. BROWN, Jr., Administrator, Division of Employment Security, State of Louisiana and Matthews Lumber Company, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 25

165 So.2d 25

T. D. HASKETT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Richard E. BROWN, Jr., Administrator, Division of Employment Security, State of Louisiana and Matthews Lumber Company, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10144.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

April 1, 1964.

Melvin L. Bellar, Marion Weimer, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Isaac Hawkins, Jr., Shreveport, for appellee.

Before GLADNEY, AYRES and BOLIN, JJ.

BOLIN, Judge.

Following his termination of employment with the Matthews Lumber Company, plaintiff sought employment benefits from defendant agency.The Appeals Referee decided the employee had left his employment without good cause and refused to certify him for benefits.This determination was affirmed by the Board of Review and plaintiff appealed to the District Court.After considering the record, the trial court reversed the decision of the Board of Review and concluded plaintiff was entitled to benefits, and the Administrator has appealed.

The evidence consisted solely of the testimony of the employee.He said he had been working for Matthews Lumber Company for several years prior to his termination; that he had been employed by one Gathright, a foreman for the lumber company, who lived in Shreveport; that it was understood at the time of his employment he(the employee) would daily ride with the foreman from his home in Shreveport to the lumber company's mill at Mansfield; that it was a part of the contract of employment he would be furnished such transportation free of charge.After having worked for his employer in such a manner for some three years, the foreman was discharged by Matthews Lumber Company.Under these circumstances, Haskett says he could not continue his employment at Mansfield because he had no other way of getting to and from work; that if he had to provide his own transportation it would not be economically feasible because his wages were small and his work was rather irregular.

As we viewthe case, the only question presented is whether plaintiff left his employment without good cause under LSA-Revised Statutes 23:1601(1).What constitutes good cause has been defined in many cases.One of the more recent cases, Flournoy v. Brown(La.App. 3 Cir., 1962)140 So.2d 729, quotes at length from 81 C.J.S.Social Security and Public Welfare§ 167 at page 253, as follows:

'* * * The terms 'good cause' and 'personal reasons' connote, as minimum requirements, real circumstances, substantial reasons, objective conditions, palpable forces that operate to produce correlative results; adequate excuses that will bear the test of reason; just grounds for action.In order to constitute good cause, the...