Archie C. Jeffers, APPELLANT,

vs.

Sandusky Metal Products, et al., APPELLEES

C.A. No. E-84-1
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH DISTRICT, COUNTY OF ERIE
Slip Opinion
April 13, 1984

APPEAL FROM ERIE COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT, NO. 45234

 JUDGES

 

John J. Connors, Jr., P.J., Andy Douglas, J., Peter M. Handwork, J., CONCUR.

 OPINION

 

 

 
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

 

This cause came on to be heard upon the record in the trial court. Each assignment of error was reviewed by the court and upon review the following disposition made:

 

This case is before the court on appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas.

 

On December 10, 1982, Archie C. Jeffers, claimant-appellant herein, filed an application for unemployment compensation benefits. Appellant was formerly employed as a plant foreman by Sandusky Metal Products, Inc., appellee herein. In June of 1982, appellee learned through rumors that appellant was thinking about quitting his job. However, when confronted about this by appellee, appellant stated that he intended to remain with the company after returning from a scheduled vacation in July. On June 29, 1982, appellant delivered a letter of resignation to appellee in which he stated that stress and pressure from his job had caused problems at home that required him to quit his employment>. There is some indication in the record that appellant had been seeing his doctor during and prior to this period. Thereafter, as noted, appellant applied for unemployment compensation.> The administrator initially determined that appellant quit without "just cause," but, on reconsideration, ruled that "just cause" existed and granted the application. Appellee subsequently appealed to the Board of Review> which, after several hearings, reversed the administrator's decision, finding that appellant had quit employment without "just cause." Thus, the Board disallowed his claim. Appellant thereafter initiated further subsidiary appeals. The court below ultimately affirmed the Board of Review's decision to disallow appellant's claim for benefits. The appeal to this court followed.

 

In bringing this appeal, appellant presents a single assignment of error for review:

 

"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN SUSTAINING THE DECISION TO DENY APPELLANT THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS WHICH FINDING WAS UNREASONABLE AND AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE."

 

The record sub judice reveals that appellant for some time had been consulting his minister about emotional problems stemming, at least in part, from his employment responsibilities with appellee, and from family problems at home. Appellant's physician had monitored his physical condition since approximately 1979, and had diagnosed his condition as manifesting symptoms of fibrositis. The testimony of appellant's physician, however, reveals that appellant would have developed these symptoms regardless of his employment with appellee.

 

In August of 1979, appellant had been advised by his physician to quit work, but, instead, appellant remained with the company for three years until early in 1982. In January of 1982, appellant again saw his physician, but there was no evidence introduced at the hearings to show that his physician, at this time, recommended that he quit work. Indeed, in his resignation letter, appellant stated that he was quitting because of job stress and the fact that his employment was interfering with his personal life and creating problems at home. Appellant did not state or claim that he was quitting for health reasons. In large part, the record discloses that appellant's decision to quit was prompted by his minister's concern that his job was interfering with his family life.

 

Based upon this evidence, the referee concluded that appellant quit his employment with appellee for personal reasons, which does not constitute "just cause" as defined in R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(a). Having reviewed the record herein, we find that the Board of Review's decision to disallow benefits, and the trial court's affirmance of the same, is a reasonable one which is supported by reliable, probative and credible evidence. Thus, the decision to disallow appellant's claim is not inconsistent with the manifest weight of the evidence. Kilgore v. Board of Review (1965), 2 Ohio App. 2d 69 (first paragraph of syllabus).

 

Accordingly, appellant's sole assignment of error is not well taken.

 

On consideration whereof, the judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas is hereby affirmed. This case is remanded to said court for assessment of costs. Costs assessed against claimant-appellant Archie C. Jeffers.

 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.See also Supp. R. 4, amended 1180.