Stone v. South Hill Chevron

Idaho Supreme Court

Stone v. South Hill Chevron

578 P.2d 1093, 99 Idaho 162, 1978 Ida. LEXIS 393

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedMay 12, 1978

Docket12584

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 578 P.2d 1093 (Stone v. South Hill Chevron) 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

Stone v. South Hill Chevron, 578 P.2d 1093, 99 Idaho 162, 1978 Ida. LEXIS 393 (Idaho 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

*163 PER CURIAM.

The appeals examiner for the Department of Employment determined that appellant Stone was ineligible for unemployment benefits on the grounds that she had left her employment “voluntarily without good cause,” in violation of I.C. § 72-1366(e). A referee for the Industrial Commission heard Stone’s appeal. His decision, affirming the appeals examiner’s denial of benefits, was adopted by the Commission.

The evidence below was conflicting. Stone argued that she did not voluntarily quit but rather that she was fired from her part-time job as bookkeeper because of declining business. Her employer argued on the contrary, that he intended only to reduce the total hours of her employment, not to fire her, but that Stone would not listen to his offer. The Commission held that a substantial reduction in working hours, under some circumstances, may provide good cause for termination of one’s employment, but that a part-time worker such as Stone, who had previously refused to accept full-time employment, does not have cause to quit simply because her hours are somewhat reduced. Clark v. Bogus Basin, 91 Idaho 916, 435 P.2d 256 (1967). This is a correct statement of the law to be applied.

The findings of fact of the Industrial Commission will be sustained on appeal if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Here the Commission’s findings are supported by substantial, though conflicting, evidence and will not be disturbed.

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

*163 PER CURIAM.

The appeals examiner for the Department of Employment determined that appellant Stone was ineligible for unemployment benefits on the grounds that she had left her employment “voluntarily without good cause,” in violation of I.C. § 72-1366(e). A referee for the Industrial Commission heard Stone’s appeal. His decision, affirming the appeals examiner’s denial of benefits, was adopted by the Commission.

The evidence below was conflicting. Stone argued that she did not voluntarily quit but rather that she was fired from her part-time job as bookkeeper because of declining business. Her employer argued on the contrary, that he intended only to reduce the total hours of her employment, not to fire her, but that Stone would not listen to his offer. The Commission held that a substantial reduction in working hours, under some circumstances, may provide good cause for termination of one’s employment, but that a part-time worker such as Stone, who had previously refused to accept full-time employment, does not have cause to quit simply because her hours are somewhat reduced. Clark v. Bogus Basin, 91 Idaho 916, 435 P.2d 256 (1967). This is a correct statement of the law to be applied.

The findings of fact of the Industrial Commission will be sustained on appeal if supported by substantial evidence in the record. Here the Commission’s findings are supported by substantial, though conflicting, evidence and will not be disturbed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

578 P.2d 1093, 99 Idaho 162, 1978 Ida. LEXIS 393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stone-v-south-hill-chevron-idaho-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack