Bowen v. Doyal

SUMMERS, Justice

(dissenting).

Richard W. Bowen was employed as a watchman by Roy O. Martin Lumber Company, Inc., in Alexandria. Because Bowen was found, after three warnings, to have neglected closing certain doors in his employer’s premises which were required to be closed, he was released from his employment. Bowen made claim for benefits under the Louisiana Employment Security Law (La.R.S. 23:1471 to 1713) and was disqualified by a representative of the Administrator of the Department of Employment Security for misconduct connected with his employment (La.R.S. 23:1601[2]). Bowen then appealed to the Appeals Referee where, after a hearing, the initial disqualification was upheld.

*857 From this adverse determination Bowen sought' review by the Department of Employment Security’s Board of Review. Finding no reason to modify or reverse the decision of the Referee, the Board of Review ordered that the decision of the Referee be deemed the decision of the Board of Review in accordance with Section 1630 of Title 23 of the Revised Statutes. Accordingly, Bowen was disqualified from benefits. See La.R.S. 23:1629.

Bowen then filed a “Petition for Appeal” in the district court of Rapides Parish seeking judicial review of the Board’s decision under rights accorded by Section 1634- of Title 23 of the Revised Statute providing that “ * * * any party to the proceedings before the board of review, may obtain judicial review thereof by filing in the district court of the domicile of the claimant a petition for review of the decision * * *.” In any proceeding under this section “the findings of the board of review as to the facts, if supported by sufficient evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of the court shall be confined to questions of law.” Because of this latter clause limiting the right of the district court to a review of questions of law, this section purports to grant the right of appeal and not a right of review under the court’s original jurisdiction as the majority seems to hold. It is necessary, therefore, for this controversy to be resolved on the question of the right to appeal to the district court,, for such, is the contention of the parties and that is the posture of the case under the pleadings and procedure heretofore employed by the.parties.

The judge of the district court was of the opinion’that because of the limitations of the district court’s appellate jurisdiction contained in Section 36 of Article. VII of the Louisiana Constitution, the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain an “appeal” in the matter. The trial judge held that Section 1634 of Title 23 could not, contrary to the constitution, confer appellate jurisdiction on district courts. Accordingly, he noted his lack of jurisdiction ex propria motu and the attempted 'appeal was dismissed.

On the theory that Section 163.4 of.Title 23 of the Revised Statutes had been declared unconstitutional by the district court when it found that statute to be contrary to Article VII, Section 36, Bowen properly perfected an appeal to this Court based upon Article VII, Section 10(2), of the constitution authorizing appeals to this Court in cases in which a law of this State has been declared unconstitutional. ' ,

Section 36 of Article VII enumerates the class of cases in which district courts have appellate jurisdiction as follows; ,

The'district courts have' appellate jurisdiction, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, for the following *859 cases: All appeals in civil cases tried by justices of the peace within their respective districts; all appeals in civil cases tried in city or municipal courts within their respective districts where the amount in dispute, or the value of the movable property involved does not exceed one hundred dollars, exclusive of interest; all appeals from orders of justices of the peace requiring a peace bond; and all appeals from sentences imposing a fine or imprisonment by a mayor’s court or by a city or municipal court * ❖ ‡

It must be obvious to anyone reading this section that no appellate jurisdiction is conferred on district courts where review is sought of cases decided by the Board of Review of the Department of Employment Security, for, by not expressly conferring appellate jurisdiction on district courts in these cases, the jurisdiction is denied, at least by this article of the constitution.

But the department contends that it is not necessary to rely upon Section 36 of Article VII to confer appellate jurisdiction on the district' courts. Appellate jurisdiction is conferred on district courts, the department contends, by Section 7 of Article XVIII of the constitution adopted in 1936, which provides that “The Legislature may establish a system of economic security and social welfare, which may provide for * * * a system of unemployment compensation.” As enacted this amendment also contained a clause declaring that “Any legislation adopted at the present session of the Legislature designed to provide for (a system of employment security) * * * is hereby ratified, reserving to the Legislature the right to alter or amend the same.’*

This constitutional grant of authority to the legislature, it is argued, authorizing and approving contemporaneously enacted legislation, which, with modifications not pertinent here, became the Louisiana Employment Security Law incorporating Section 1634 of Title 23 of the Revised Statutes, gave Section 1634 the dignity and force of a constitutional enactment. (See Act 97 of 1936 and Act 61 of 1936, A Joint Resolution). Thus, since Section 1634 acquired the dignity and force of a constitutional provision, and that section permits an appeal to the district court, Section 1634 supplies the authorization to appeal this ease to the district court which is lacking in Section 36 of Article VII.

When Section 7 of Article XVIII- authorized the legislature to establish a system of economic security and social welfare and provide for a system of unemployment *861 compensation, its objective was to permit legislation in a field of economic security ajid social welfare which was not believed to be permissible under existing constitutional authority. (See Section 22 of Act 97 of 1936). The ratification clause contained in Section 7, Article XVIII, was meant to legalize that basic concept in Act 97 of 1936 (La.R.S. 23:1471, et seq.), the implementing legislation enacted contemporaneously. Ratification did not give the implementing legislation the dignity of a constitutional amendment. It simply shielded the legislation from attack because of possible infirmities believed to be based on then existing constitutional impediments to such a system of economic security and social welfare. Any procedural aspect of the legislation, however, such as Section 1634 of Title 23, remained subject to other constitutional provisions specifically regulating those subjects. That is to say, Section 36 of Article VII was not modified in any respect by Section 7 of Article XVIII. Thus I would conclude that the district court cannot entertain this appeal.

I agree with the Chief Justice, however, that district courts are vested with original jurisdiction to hear and determine such matters under Section 35 of Article VII of the Constitution.

I respectfully dissent.