Harris v. Green Tree, Inc.

Idaho Supreme Court

Harris v. Green Tree, Inc.

596 P.2d 99, 100 Idaho 227, 1979 Ida. LEXIS 426

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedJune 12, 1979

Docket12995

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 596 P.2d 99 (Harris v. Green Tree, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harris v. Green Tree, Inc., 596 P.2d 99, 100 Idaho 227, 1979 Ida. LEXIS 426 (Idaho 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Claimant-Appellant Bob H. Harris was employed as a construction carpenter and *228 superintendent by employer Green Tree, Inc., on a motel remodeling and construction project. The employment lasted about 23 months, until November 1, 1977. Harris’s son and two or three other laborers worked under him.

On November 1, 1977, a 24-unit motel building had been virtually completed and remodeling of a laundry building was about to commence as the next phase of the project when Mr. Green, president of employer corporation, scolded Harris’s son for slow work, which resulted in termination of the son’s employment.

Thereupon, Harris told Green that he was upset about his son’s termination, his own pay and about matters which had occurred months before, including having to pay for a broken window on the job, being docked pay for work absences, withheld payroll taxes not accounted for during a prior period of time, and not having received bonuses. He told Green that if his son were not rehired he would leave, and that Green should call him to resolve the difficulties. Green did call him later and told him his paycheck was ready.

The Industrial Commission adopted the Referee’s conclusion that Harris quit his employment because Green terminated his son as an employee, which was not a sufficiently compelling reason to constitute good cause, and affirmed the decision of the appeals examiner that Harris is ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Under Article 5,' § 9 of the Idaho Constitution, our review of unemployment compensation cases is limited to questions of law, and this Court will not adopt findings at variance with those of the Commission, providing the Commission’s findings are supported by substantial and competent evidence in the record. Booth v. City of Burley, 99 Idaho 229, 580 P.2d 75 (1978).

There is substantial and competent evidence in the record here to support the Commission’s findings that the claimant quit his employment due to his son’s termination, and that such was not a sufficiently compelling reason to constitute “good cause” for leaving his employment to make him eligible for unemployment benefits pursuant to I.C. § 72-1366(e). The Order of the Industrial Commission is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Claimant-Appellant Bob H. Harris was employed as a construction carpenter and *228 superintendent by employer Green Tree, Inc., on a motel remodeling and construction project. The employment lasted about 23 months, until November 1, 1977. Harris’s son and two or three other laborers worked under him.

On November 1, 1977, a 24-unit motel building had been virtually completed and remodeling of a laundry building was about to commence as the next phase of the project when Mr. Green, president of employer corporation, scolded Harris’s son for slow work, which resulted in termination of the son’s employment.

Thereupon, Harris told Green that he was upset about his son’s termination, his own pay and about matters which had occurred months before, including having to pay for a broken window on the job, being docked pay for work absences, withheld payroll taxes not accounted for during a prior period of time, and not having received bonuses. He told Green that if his son were not rehired he would leave, and that Green should call him to resolve the difficulties. Green did call him later and told him his paycheck was ready.

The Industrial Commission adopted the Referee’s conclusion that Harris quit his employment because Green terminated his son as an employee, which was not a sufficiently compelling reason to constitute good cause, and affirmed the decision of the appeals examiner that Harris is ineligible for unemployment benefits.

Under Article 5,' § 9 of the Idaho Constitution, our review of unemployment compensation cases is limited to questions of law, and this Court will not adopt findings at variance with those of the Commission, providing the Commission’s findings are supported by substantial and competent evidence in the record. Booth v. City of Burley, 99 Idaho 229, 580 P.2d 75 (1978).

There is substantial and competent evidence in the record here to support the Commission’s findings that the claimant quit his employment due to his son’s termination, and that such was not a sufficiently compelling reason to constitute “good cause” for leaving his employment to make him eligible for unemployment benefits pursuant to I.C. § 72-1366(e). The Order of the Industrial Commission is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

596 P.2d 99, 100 Idaho 227, 1979 Ida. LEXIS 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-green-tree-inc-idaho-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack