From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carson v. Employment Division

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jun 1, 1976
550 P.2d 463 (Or. Ct. App. 1976)

Opinion

CA 5672

Argued April 28, 1976.

Affirmed June 1, 1976.

Judicial Review from Employment Appeals Board.

Larry T. Coady, Linn-Benton Legal Aid Association, Albany, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

Rhidian M. M. Morgan, Solicitor General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent Employment Division. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Attorney General, and W. Michael Gillette, Solicitor General, Salem.

No appearance for respondent Central Linn Seed, Inc., a corporation.

Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Fort and Lee, Judges.

Affirmed.


FORT, J.



Claimant was denied unemployment benefits by the Employment Appeals Board which found he did not have good cause for voluntarily leaving his job as a warehouseman under ORS 657.176(2)(c). He appeals.

ORS 657.176(2)(c):

"(2) If the authorized representative designated by the administrator finds:

"* * * * *
"(c) The individual voluntarily left work without good cause, * * *

"* * * * *
the individual shall be disqualified from the receipt of benefits until he has performed service for which remuneration is received equal to or in excess of his weekly benefit amount in four separate weeks subsequent to the week in which the act causing the disqualification occurred."

The board found that claimant left because he said that the foreman treated him unfairly, giving him the "dirty work" and using abusive language to him. The board concluded that the record did not establish sufficient harassment or humiliation to constitute good cause.

The board's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and it correctly applied the standard of "good cause." We have previously held that in order to have good cause for leaving his job with no prospects for other employment, an employe is required to make some effort to resolve problems on his job unless he can show that such effort would be futile. Cantrell v. Employment Division, 24 Or. App. 215, 545 P.2d 143, Sup Ct review denied (1976); Stevenson v. Morgan, 17 Or. App. 428, 522 P.2d 1204 (1974). We have also held that in order to constitute good cause, harassment must be substantial, judged by the standard of a reasonable person. A personality conflict, standing alone, is not sufficient. Brotherton v. Morgan, 17 Or. App. 435, 439, 522 P.2d 1210 (1974); Stevenson v. Morgan, supra. On the basis of the record in this case we affirm the board's decision.

Affirmed.



Summaries of

Carson v. Employment Division

Oregon Court of Appeals
Jun 1, 1976
550 P.2d 463 (Or. Ct. App. 1976)
Case details for

Carson v. Employment Division

Case Details

Full title:CARSON, Appellant, v. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION et al, Respondents

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Jun 1, 1976

Citations

550 P.2d 463 (Or. Ct. App. 1976)
550 P.2d 463

Citing Cases

Stone v. Employment Division

The Board's ultimate conclusion that petitioner voluntarily left work without "good cause" was not,…

McPherson v. Employment Division

Cantrell v. Employment Division, 24 Or. App. 215, 545 P.2d 143 (1976), treated the appeals board's decision…