Nordhoff v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division, 19189

• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Writing for the Court: KELLEY
• Citation: Nordhoff v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division, 156 N.E.2d 787, 129 Ind.App. 378 (Ind. App. 1959)
• Decision Date: 16 March 1959
• Docket Number: No. 19189,No. 2,19189,2
• Parties: Eileen V. NORDHOFF, R. R. #5, Jasper, Indiana, Appellant, v. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION, William S. McMaster and William G. Johnson (Howard Friend, Member, Not Participating), as Members of and as constituting the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division; General Electric Company, Tell City, Tube Plant, Tell City, Indiana, Appellees

Page 787

156 N.E.2d 787

129 Ind.App. 378

Eileen V. NORDHOFF, R. R. #5, Jasper, Indiana, Appellant, v. REVIEW BOARD OF THE INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION William S. McMaster and William G. Johnson (Howard Friend Member, Not Participating), as Members of and as constituting the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division; General Electric Company, Tell City, Tube Plant, Tell City, Indiana, Appellees.

No. 19189.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 2.

March 16, 1959.

Nordhoff & Nordhoff, Jasper, McNutt, Hurt & Blue, Martinsville, for appellant.

Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Keith Campbell, Deputy Atty. Gen., George P. Ryan and Allan T. Nolan, with Ross, McCord, Ice & Miller, Indianapolis, for appellee.

KELLEY, Judge.

Appellant, aged 24, a resident of Jasper, Indiana, was employed by appellee, General Electric Company, Tell City Tube Plant, Tell City, Indiana, as a mounting operator, for approximately five and one-half years, and from 1954 to May 29, 1957 worked at said appellee's plant in Tell City, Indiana. The Board found that Jasper, Indiana, is a distance of 42 miles from Tell City, Indiana, appellant's place of employment. During the period from 1954 to May 29, 1957, appellant commuted between her home in Jasper and her employment in Tell City by riding with another employee to whom she paid therefor the sum of $6 per week. On May 29, 1957, appellant, being then pregnant with child, was accordingly granted leave from her employment and a child was born to her on August 5, 1957. Said leave expired on October 5, 1957. On October 8, 1957, said appellee employer received the following letter from appellant:

'General Electric Company:

'Since my pregnancy leave I have decided not to return to work because it is too far from my home and the drive is too hard on me.

'I enjoyed working for G. E. and hope my six years of employment was satisfactory too. Thank you.'

On October 22, 1957 the Deputy for the local office determined that appellant voluntarily quit her work without good cause. Thereafter, appellant filed a request for hearing before the Referee and oral testimony of the employer and appellant was taken.

Appellant testified that her ride with the other employee was no longer available; that she attempted to get a ride with another lady but the latter already had a load; that she and her husband own an automobile and that she could drive it; that 'considering the wear and tear on the car' to drive her own car alone would cost her two or three times as much per week as she formerly paid to ride with the other employee; that her 'take home' pay was approximately $52 per week; that in her letter to her employer (above quoted) she did not explain everything because she didn't think it was necessary 'since I didn't have a way, that is why I wrote that in, and by saying it was too hard alone--I meant the trip alone--to travel alone was too hard'; that if it weren't for the fact that it was too expensive she would be willing to drive her own car; that she was physically able to work and was available for work; that the sole reason for leaving her work was that she had lost her transportation; that there is no public transportation between Jasper and Tell City; that she would return to her employment if she had transportation.

The Referee concluded that appellant 'had good cause for leaving on October 8, 1957. A loss of transportation to work has been generally held to be good cause for one's leaving of their employment.' The appellee employer filed a request for a review of this conclusion of the referee. The Review Board, and its finding and conclusions, recited that:

'Although the claimant testified at the referee's hearing that her reason for not returning to work was lack of transportation, the Board finds that at the time of quitting, the only reason given to the employer was that the distance of travel was too great and too hard on the claimant.

'The Board further finds that claimant was physically able to work and from the claimant's own testimony, she would be willing to travel the distance to the employer's place of business if she had transportation.'

The Board then concluded:

'The Board concludes that the question before it is to determine whether or not the reason or reasons given by the claimant at the time of her quitting constitute good cause.

'The Board concludes that from the evidence claimant did not have good cause for quitting her...