ARMSTRONG V. DANIELS, DIRECTOR Am.] Cite as 270 Ark. 303 (Ark. App. 1980) 303 Linda ARMSTRONG v. Charles L. DANIELS, Director of Labor E 80-61 603 S.W. 2d 481 Court of Appeals of Arkansas Opinion delivered September 17, 1980 1. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY — INCREASE IN COST OF GASOLINE USED BY EMPLOYEE NOT "GOOD CAUSE " FOR QUITTING JOB — DISQUALIFICATION FROM RECEIVING BENEFITS. — The fact that an employee's reimbursement for her gasoline expenses in connection with her work did not increase proportionately with the increase in the cost of gasoline is not "good cause connected with the work" for quitting her job, and thus she is disqualified from receiving benefits. 2. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY — VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE BASED UPON ECONOMIC CONDITIONS — EMPLOYEE DISQUALIFIED FROM RECEIVING BENEFITS. — While the Court of Appeals will consider allegations of substantial decrease in wages as good cause for voluntary departure from employment, complaints based primarily upon economic conditions beyond the control of the employer do not fit the statutory exemption for disqualification.
3 0 4 ARMSTRONG V. DANIELS, DIRECTOR Cite as 270 Ark. 303 (Ark. App. 1980) [270 Appeal from Arkansas Board of Review; affirmed. No briefs filed. DAVID NEWBERN, Judge. In this employment security benefits case, the appellant contends she quit her job because reimbursement for her gasoline expenses did not increase proportionately with the increase with the cost of gasoline. She contends this was "good cause connected with the work" and thus she should not be disqualified from receiving benefits. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-1106(a) (Supp. 1979). We affirm the board of review determination that this was not "good cause connected with the work." The appellant contends that her employer, the Arkansas Department of Labor, had increased the territory she was required to cover in her work as a labor investigator, and that it was costing her too much to drive her own vehicle. While we will consider allegations of substantial decrease in wages as good cause for voluntary departure from employment, we will not say that complaints based primarily upon economic conditions beyond the control of the employer fit the statutory exemption for disqualification. Broyles v. Charles L. Daiels, et al., 269 Ark. 712, 600 S.W. 2d 426 (Ark. App. 1980). Apparently this employee takes no exception to the increase in her territory but for the coinciding increase in the Rrice of gasoline. Thus, the primary reason for her voluntarily quitting her job was beyond the control of her employer. Affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.