Parish v. Brown

• Decision Date: 30 April 1964
• Docket Number: No. 10173,10173
• Citation: Parish v. Brown, 163 So.2d 860 (La. App. 1964)
• Parties: Ernest G. PARISH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard E. BROWN, Jr., Administrator, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana

Page 860

163 So.2d 860

Ernest G. PARISH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard E. BROWN, Jr., Administrator, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10173.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

April 30, 1964.

Isaac F. Hawkins, Jr., Shreveport, for appellant.

Melvin L. Bellar, Marion, Weimer and James A. Piper, Baton Rouge, for appellee.

Before GLADNEY, AYRES and BOLIN, JJ.

GLADNEY, Judge

Ernest G. Parish appeals from a judgment of the district court affirming a ruling of the Louisiana Board of Review of the Division of Employment Security of the Department of Labor of the State of Louisiana denying his claim for unemployment compensation benefits.

The uncontroverted facts disclose that the employee after accepting a job with the Ardis Ritchie Grocery of Shreveport worked one day and quit, giving as his reason therefor that he did not know the work was to be largely manual labor; nor did he realize that the hours would be in excess of forty hours per week, and that the pay was going to be the small hourly wage it turned out to be. Also he testified that because he was a diabetic the long hours of work would be harmful to his health and would interfere with his intake of insulin.

In its determination, the Board of Review made, inter alia, findings of fact that disclosed the employee Parish was aware of the number of hours he would have to work, and the approximate pay when he accepted the employment; that after he decided he was dissatisfied with the job, he did not go to his employer and discuss the matter further with him nor did he give the job a fair trial by working just one day.

The sole issue to be determined is whether or not the employee left his employment without good cause connected with his employment.

It is argued on behalf of appellant that in determining whether or not any work is suitable for an individual, the Administrator shall consider the degree of risk involved to his health, safety and morals, his physical fitness and prior training, his experience and prior earnings, his length of employment, his prospects for securing local work in his customary occupation and the distance of the available work from his residence; and that the statute provides that compensation shall not be denied any otherwise eligible individual for refusing to accept work if the wages, hours or other conditions of the work offered are substantially less favorable to the individual than those prevailing for similar work in the locality. LSA-R.S. 23:1601(3)(a, b). Counsel contends a wage scale of $1.15 per hour as a shipping clerk for the Ardis Ritchie Grocery with employment requiring work of sixty hours per week would have required of Parish working conditions that were substantially different from previous employment where he performed secretarial work at a pay of $1.95 per hour for a forty hour weekly period.

The findings of the Board of Review are not seriously disputed and disclose rather clearly that the employee was fully aware of the conditions upon which he undertook his brief employment. The findings of the Board of Review as to the facts, if supported by sufficient evidence and in the absence of...