From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Employment Sec. Comm. v. Rakestraw

Supreme Court of Mississippi
Nov 15, 1965
179 So. 2d 830 (Miss. 1965)

Summary

finding ample evidence to support factual finding of Board that claimant voluntarily quit suitable employment without good cause and was not discharged

Summary of this case from Huckabee v. Miss. Employment Security Comm

Opinion

No. 43669.

November 15, 1965.

1. Employment Security Commission — court review.

The province of courts in reviewing unemployment compensation cases is limited to dealing with questions of law. Sec. 7388, Code 1942.

2. Employment Security Commission — voluntarily quitting suitable employment without good cause.

Evidence in unemployment compensation case supported factual finding of Board of Review that claimant quit suitable employment voluntarily without good cause and was not discharged. Sec. 7379, Code 1942.

3. Employment Security Commission — same — claimant disqualified for benefits.

Claimant who quit her job in a moment of pique during a brief misunderstanding with the plant manager, at a time when she was being asked by him to return to work, was disqualified to receive unemployment compensation benefits. Sec. 7376, Code 1942.

Headnotes as approved by Smith, J.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Union County; WALTER M. O'BARR, J.

H.L. Hutcherson, Jackson, for appellant.

I. The Board of Review's finding of fact that the appellee was not discharged, but instead quit, and that she left her work at a time when she understood she could continue if she wanted to is clearly supported by the evidence and is conclusive. Mississippi Employment Security Comm. v. Blasingame, 237 Miss. 744, 116 So.2d 213.

II. The appellee left suitable employment voluntarily without good cause, within the meaning of Section 5(a) of the Act. Ambrose v. Employment Security Comm., Michigan Circuit Court (9-16-60), Commerce Clearing House, UI Reporter, All-State Guide 1975.953; Beam v. Board of Review, 196 Pa. Super. 570, 176 A.2d 165; Bridges v. Administrator, Louisiana District Court (3-12-63), Commerce Clearing House, UI Reporter, All-State Guide 1975.953; Brooks v. Industrial Comm., Wisconsin Circuit Court (10-17-60), Commerce Clearing House, UI Reporter, All-State Guide, 1975.1255; Cost v. State, Ohio Court of Common Pleas (12-14-55), Commerce Clearing House, UI Reporter, All-State Guide 1975.163; Coyle v. Board of Review, 191 Pa. Super. 482, 159 A.2d 13; Department of Industrial Relations v. Tomlinson, 251 Ala. 144, 36 So.2d 196; Disario v. Board of Review, 193 Pa. Super. 517, 165 A.2d 111; Dwyer v. Appeal Board of Michigan, 32 N.W.2d 434; Forman v. Commission, Oregon Circuit Court (4-10-62), Commerce Clearing House, UI Reporter, All-State Guide 1975.953; Formica v. Dresser, Connecticut Superior Court (1-6-41), Commerce Clearing House, UI Reporter, All-State Guide 1975.393; Gaines v. Board of Review, Ohio Court of Common Pleas (4-23-63), Commerce Clearing House, UI Reporter, All-State Guide 1975.163; Geckler v. Board of Review (Ind.), 193 N.E.2d 357; Hallau v. BUC, Ohio Court of Common Pleas (6-5-63), Commerce Clearing House, UI Reporter, All-State Guide 1975.1253; In Re. Chawkin, 235 N.Y.S.2d 475; In Re. Raysor, 16 N.Y. App. Div.2d 724; Jackson v. Employment Security Comm., Michigan Circuit Court (11-6-57), Commerce Clearing House, UI Reporter, All-State Guide 1975.1537; Mann v. Department of Industrial Relations, 35 Ala. App. 591, 50 So.2d 786; Martin v. Board of Review, 197 Pa. Super. 424, 178 A.2d 825; Meeks v. Department of Industrial Relations (Ala.), 110 So.2d 643; Mikanowicz v. Board of Review, 178 Pa. Super. 612, 115 A.2d 846; Mills v. Mississippi Employment Security Comm., 228 Miss. 789, 89 So.2d 727; Mississippi Unemployment Security Comm. v. Blasingame, supra; Patterson v. Adm., Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Commerce Clearing House, UI Reporter, All-State Guide 1975.171 (11-20-58); Peterman v. Adm., Ohio Court of Common Pleas, Commerce Clearing House, UI Reporter, All-State Guide 1975.953 (6-6-54); Stimson v. Employment Security Comm., Michigan Circuit Court (7-14-58), Commerce Clearing House, UI Reporter, All-State Guide 1975.161; Smith v. Board of Review, 181 Pa. Super. 185, 124 A.2d 707; Uhler v. Board of Review, 199 Pa. 79, 184 A.2d 273; Wolfe v. UCC, 232 Iowa 1254, 7 N.W.2d 799.

J.E. Boone, New Albany, for appellee.

I. Appellee was discharged from employment by employer for no cause or reason. MacFarland v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 158 Pa. Super. 418, 45 A.2d 423; Mills v. Mississippi Employment Security Comm., 228 Miss. 789, 89 So.2d 727.

II. Voluntarily leaving employment after harsh abuse by employer of innocent employee constitutes good cause. Department of Labor Industry v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 133 Pa. Super. 518, 2 A.2d 211; Department of Labor Industry v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 148 Pa. Super. 246, 24 A.2d 667; Lindley v. Murphy, 387 Ill. 506, 56 N.E.2d 832; Mills v. Mississippi Employment Security Comm., supra; Anno. 165 A.L.R. 1382.


This case arose out of the claim of appellee, Mildred Rakestraw, for unemployment compensation benefits under the Mississippi Employment Security Commission Law, Mississippi Code Annotated sections 7368-7445 (Supp. 1964).

The claim was denied by the Commission and such denial was affirmed by the Appeals' Referee and the Board of Review of the Mississippi Employment Security Commission upon the ground that appellee had quit her job voluntarily without good cause.

Upon appeal to the Circuit Court of Union County, the court entered a judgment which reversed the decision of the Board of Review and directed that unemployment compensation benefits be paid to appellee. The Mississippi Employment Security Commission has appealed here from that judgment.

(Hn 1) The province of the courts in reviewing the cases under these statutes is clearly defined and limited to dealing with questions of law. Mississippi Code Annotated section 7388 (Supp. 1964) reads in part as follows:

"In any judicial proceedings under this section, the findings of the board of review as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of said court shall be confined to questions of law."

In Miss. Employ. Sec. Com. v. Blasingame, 237 Miss. 744, 747, 116 So.2d 213, 214 (1959), the court said:

"The scope of review by the courts on an appeal from an order of the Board of Review is set out in the statute. . . . The legislature has clearly provided that judicial review of decisions of the Board of Review shall be confined to questions of law.

"The question is whether the order of the Board of Review denying benefits to appellee is supported by evidence."

In the case before us, the circumstances of appellee's separation from her employment in the office of the manager of a garment plant were fully developed in the evidence which included the testimony of appellee and of the plant manager. Based upon this evidence, the Board of Review found as a fact that appellee had not been discharged from her employment, but had quit suitable employment voluntarily without good cause within the meaning of Mississippi Code Annotated section 7379 (Supp. 1964). The Board concluded that this fact disqualified her from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.

(Hn 2) We have reviewed the record of the evidence upon which the Board of Review based its conclusions. It is our opinion that this evidence amply supports the factual finding of the Board of Review that appellee quit suitable employment voluntarily without good cause and was not discharged. This finding of fact by the Board of Review is supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud is conclusive upon the courts of this state. (Hn 3) The Board had before it the testimony of the appellee and of the plant manager. From this testimony the conclusion is inescapable that appellee quit her job in a moment of pique during a brief misunderstanding with the plant manager, at a time when she was being asked by him to return to work. The Board of Review was correct in its conclusion that this disqualified her under Mississippi Code Annotated section 7376 (Supp. 1964) to receive unemployment compensation benefits.

Reversed and order of the Commission, as affirmed by the Appeals' Referee and the Board of Review, reinstated.

Reversed and order of the Mississippi Employment Security Commission reinstated.

Lee, C.J., and Rodgers, Patterson and Inzer, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Employment Sec. Comm. v. Rakestraw

Supreme Court of Mississippi
Nov 15, 1965
179 So. 2d 830 (Miss. 1965)

finding ample evidence to support factual finding of Board that claimant voluntarily quit suitable employment without good cause and was not discharged

Summary of this case from Huckabee v. Miss. Employment Security Comm

In Mississippi Empl. Sec. Comm'n v. Rakestraw, 254 Miss. 56, 61, 179 So.2d 830, 831 (1965), the appellee quit her job following a brief misunderstanding with the plant manager, at a time when she was being asked by him to return to work.

Summary of this case from Lafoe v. Mississippi Emp. Sec. Com'n
Case details for

Employment Sec. Comm. v. Rakestraw

Case Details

Full title:MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION v. RAKESTRAW

Court:Supreme Court of Mississippi

Date published: Nov 15, 1965

Citations

179 So. 2d 830 (Miss. 1965)
179 So. 2d 830

Citing Cases

South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Mississippi Employment Security Commission

See also Mississippi Employment Security Commission v. Fortenberry, 193 So.2d 142 (Miss. 1966); Mississippi…

Ray v. Bivens

1981); Mississippi Employment Security Commission v. Fortenberry, 193 So.2d 142 (Miss. 1966); Mississippi…