Henderson v. Department of Industrial Relations
| Decision Date | 20 January 1949 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 826. |
| Citation | 40 So.2d 629,252 Ala. 239 |
| Parties | HENDERSON v. DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 19, 1949.
Bob Moore, Jr., of Winfield, for appellant.
Aubrey M. Cates, Jr., and J. Eugene Foster, of Montgomery, for appellee Department of Industrial Relations.
Martin Turner & McWhorter and Alvin W. Vogtle, Jr., of Birmingham, for appellee Alabama Mills, Inc.
The appellant, Preston H. Henderson, was an employee of the Alabama Mills, Inc., at its mill located at Winfield Alabama. Alabama Mills, Inc., was engaged in the manufacture of textile products. Henderson began working for that company in October, 1943. Such employment ended on or about October 27, 1947.
On October 29, 1947, Henderson filed a claim for unemployment benefits allegedly due him under the Unemployment Compensation Law of this state.--Code 1940, Title 26, § 180 et seq., as amended. This claim was allowed by the claims examiner of the Department of Industrial Relations. Alabama Mills, Inc., as Henderson's last employer, appealed to an appeals referee, who denied the claim. From the action of the appeals referee, Henderson appealed to the Board of Appeals which Board affirmed the decision of the appeals referee holding that Henderson was not entitled to any benefits.
Thereupon, Henderson duly took an appeal to the circuit court of Marion County, in accordance with the provisions of § 221, Title 26, Code 1940. The cause came on for trial before the circuit court of Marion County, without a jury, on June 8, 1948.--Ex parte Miles, 248 Ala. 386, 27 So.2d 777. On June 18, 1948, that court rendered a judgment wherein the decision of the Board of Appeals was affirmed and Henderson denied benefits. From such judgment Henderson has appealed to this court.
An individual is disqualified for benefits under the Alabama Unemployment Compensation Law if he left his work voluntarily without good cause connected with such work.--Subsec. B, § 214, Title 26, Code 1940, as amended.
The trial court's judgment denying benefits to Henderson was based on the finding by that court that he had left his work voluntarily and that he did not have good cause connected with such work for so doing.
There is no insistence made here that the trial court erred in finding that appellant left his work voluntarily. In fact, Henderson admitted that he did leave voluntarily. But he insists that the evidence shows that he had good cause connected with his work for leaving his job and that the trial court erred in finding to the contrary and denying him benefits.
When a claimant admits that he voluntarily left his employment but seeks to avoid the disqualifications from receiving benefits set up in Subsec. B of § 214, Title 26, supra, we think that the burden is upon him to show that he had good cause connected with his work for leaving such employment.
Henderson seems to contend here that the evidence showed that he had two good causes connected with his work for leaving his employment. The first, physical disability; second, that he was assigned duties in addition to those which he was required to perform when he entered the employ of Alabama Mills, Inc., and therefore he was unable to do his work properly.
Ill health or physical infirmity is, of course, good cause for employees to cease working. But unless the illness or physical infirmity is shown to have resulted from or to have been caused by the employment, the employee is disqualified from receiving benefits when he voluntarily leaves his employment on account of such illness or physical infirmity. In other words, the cause for quitting may have been a good one, but the cause must have been connected with the work.
There is nothing in the evidence in this case to indicate that any illness or physical disability which Henderson had on the day he left his employment resulted from the character of work he was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolf's v. Iowa Employment Sec. Commission
...his work because of illness or for other personal reason not directly incident to the employment are Henderson v. Department of Industrial Relations, 252 Ala. 239, 40 So.2d 629; West Point Mfg. Co. v. Keith, 35 Ala.App. 414, 47 So.2d 594; Haynes v. Unemployment Compensation Comm., 353 Mo. 5......
-
Toothaker v. Maine Employment Sec. Commission
...must be directly attributable to the employment. Fannon v. Federal Cartridge Corporation (Minn.), supra; Henderson v. Department of Industrial Relations, 252 Ala. 239, 40 So.2d 629; Raffety v. Iowa Employment Security Commission, 247 Iowa 896, 76 N.W.2d 787; Bussmann Mfg. Co. v. Industrial ......
-
Broadway & Fourth Ave. Realty Co. v. Allen
...N.W.2d 249; John Morrell & Company v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 69 S.Dak. 618, 13 N.W.2d 498; Henderson v. Department of Industrial Relations, 252 Ala. 239, 40 So.2d 629; Wolpers v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 353 Mo. 1067, 186 S.W.2d 440; Seroski v. Unemployment Compe......
-
Warran v. Ky. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n
...leaves his employment on such account. The cause of the quitting must have been connected with the work. Henderson v. Department of Industrial Relations, 252 Ala. 239, 40 So.2d 629. In that case, the claim was filed two days after the employment ended. In State v. Hix, 132 W.Va. 516, 54 S.E......