Cole v. Doyal

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Cole v. Doyal

195 So. 2d 759, 1967 La. App. LEXIS 5543

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedFebruary 15, 1967

DocketNo. 1930

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 195 So. 2d 759 (Cole v. Doyal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cole v. Doyal, 195 So. 2d 759, 1967 La. App. LEXIS 5543 (La. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinions

TATE, Judge.

The claimant seeks judicial review of an administrative denial of unemployment benefits sought by him. LSA-R.S. 23 :- 1471-23 .T713. Cole was held disqualified because he had been discharged for misconduct connected with his employment. LSA-R.S. 23:1601(2). The trial court upheld the claimant Cole’s disqualification, and the claimant appeals.

Cole’s foreman and assistant foreman testified that Cole was discharged because (1) he had repeatedly through neglect left his lumber-mill work pile up, disrupting production, although capable of keeping up with his assignments and (2) he had repeatedly taken an extra 5-10 minutes beyond the 15-minute coffee break allowed him, spending the extra time talking with other employees at other stations on his way back to work thus slowing down their production also. These company witnesses testified that during the last week of the claimant’s employment there were several recurrences in these delinquencies despite several previous warnings. The claimant himself denied this testimony.

Cole’s counsel argues that the conduct should not be held to be disqualifying since not of a serious nature, and that, anyway, the alleged misconduct has not been sufficiently proved. However, we have recently overruled similar contentions, with full discussion, in Hall v. Doyal, La.App. 3 Cir., 191 So.2d 349.

In the Hall decision we noted that disqualifying conduct may, as here, con[761]*761sist of wanton negligence or neglectful failure to perform duties of such recurrence or degree that they are considered tantamount to the deliberate or intentional conduct in willful disregard of the employer’s interest which by statute constitutes disqualifying misconduct. We likewise held that the administrative tribunal’s evaluation of the credibility of the opposing witnesses is binding upon the courts in judicial review of the unemployment agency’s determinations. See LSA-R.S. 23:1634.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the dismissal of the claimant’s suit for unemployment compensation benefits.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TATE, Judge.

The claimant seeks judicial review of an administrative denial of unemployment benefits sought by him. LSA-R.S. 23 :- 1471-23 .T713. Cole was held disqualified because he had been discharged for misconduct connected with his employment. LSA-R.S. 23:1601(2). The trial court upheld the claimant Cole’s disqualification, and the claimant appeals.

Cole’s foreman and assistant foreman testified that Cole was discharged because (1) he had repeatedly through neglect left his lumber-mill work pile up, disrupting production, although capable of keeping up with his assignments and (2) he had repeatedly taken an extra 5-10 minutes beyond the 15-minute coffee break allowed him, spending the extra time talking with other employees at other stations on his way back to work thus slowing down their production also. These company witnesses testified that during the last week of the claimant’s employment there were several recurrences in these delinquencies despite several previous warnings. The claimant himself denied this testimony.

Cole’s counsel argues that the conduct should not be held to be disqualifying since not of a serious nature, and that, anyway, the alleged misconduct has not been sufficiently proved. However, we have recently overruled similar contentions, with full discussion, in Hall v. Doyal, La.App. 3 Cir., 191 So.2d 349.

In the Hall decision we noted that disqualifying conduct may, as here, con[761]*761sist of wanton negligence or neglectful failure to perform duties of such recurrence or degree that they are considered tantamount to the deliberate or intentional conduct in willful disregard of the employer’s interest which by statute constitutes disqualifying misconduct. We likewise held that the administrative tribunal’s evaluation of the credibility of the opposing witnesses is binding upon the courts in judicial review of the unemployment agency’s determinations. See LSA-R.S. 23:1634.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the dismissal of the claimant’s suit for unemployment compensation benefits.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 So. 2d 759, 1967 La. App. LEXIS 5543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cole-v-doyal-lactapp-1967.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack