Case Name: L. G. BALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATOR OF the DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY OF the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, State of Louisiana, Defendant-Appellee
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1970-02-03
Citations: 231 So. 2d 470
Docket Number: No. 11346
Parties: L. G. BALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATOR OF the DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY OF the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, State of Louisiana, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before AYRES, DIXON and WILLIAMS, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 231
Pages: 470–471

Head Matter:
L. G. BALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ADMINISTRATOR OF the DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY OF the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, State of Louisiana, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11346.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
Feb. 3, 1970.
John A. Files, Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellant.
Marion Weimer, James A. Piper, and James A. McGraw, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee.
Before AYRES, DIXON and WILLIAMS, JJ.

Opinion:
DIXON, Judge.
This is an appeal in an unemployment compensation case.
The claimant was denied unemployment compensation at every stage of the proceedings. He was a common laborer doing "cemetery work" for about eleven years. While receiving unemployment compensation, he was referred to a job at P & H Tube Corporation as a common laborer at $1.75 an hour. His previous rate of pay was $1.85 an hour. The claimant did not report to P & H, and his unemployment compensation was terminated under the provisions of R.S. 23:1601(3) because he failed to apply for available work "without good cause."
The claimant's excuse was that he heard that a former employer was about to get a contract and might have work for him that would pay him $2.50 an hour.
The other job did not materialize. There was no evidence offered to show that appellant's hope of the better job was anything more than a fond hope. This hope did not furnish a substantial or compelling reason for the appellant's failure to accept the work offered him at P & H Tube Corporation.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.