 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ward v. Acoustiseal2/3/2004
Alethea Ward challenges the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision that, because Ward was incarcerated for several days for not appearing for court in connection with traffic violations, she had voluntarily quit her job and was not eligible for unemployment compensation. We affirm the commission's decision.
Ward had worked for Acoustiseal, Inc., for approximately five years when, on November 22, 2002, two bail bondsmen appeared at her job site and took her into custody because of outstanding warrants for traffic charges. Before the bondsmen took her away, Ward's supervisor told her that " it would not affect job."
Ward was incarcerated until the evening of December 2, 2002. While in jail, she did not telephone Acoustiseal to report her absences but had someone else do it. Acoustiseal's employee policy required its employees to telephone personally to report absences from work and declared that failure to do so would result in an employee's receiving two "absenteeism occasions" rather than one. Acoustiseal terminated any employee who had four "absenteeism occasions" within a six-month period.
On December 3, 2002, Ward telephoned Acoutiseal's human resources personnel who told her that Acoutiseal had terminated her employment because of her not reporting to work and not telephoning to report her absences. Ward applied for unemployment benefits with the Division of Employment Security. One of the division's deputies determined that Ward was not qualified to receive unemployment benefits on the ground that Ward had quit her job voluntarily without good cause attributable to her work or her employer. Ward appealed the deputy's decision to the division's appeals tribunal, which also found that Ward voluntarily quit her job without good cause attributable to her work or her employer. Ward appealed this decision to the commission, which affirmed and adopted the appeals tribunal's decision as its own. Ward appeals the commission's decision. Ward asserts that the commission's decision is wrong because she did not voluntarily quit her job. She asserts that Acoustiseal discharged her after assuring her that her absence was approved and would not affect her job. We disagree.
Section 288.050.1(1), RSMo 2000, requires that, for an employee who has quit her job to qualify for unemployment compensation, her quitting must have been for good cause attributable to her work or her employer. "An employee is deemed to have left work voluntarily when she leaves of her own accord as opposed to being discharged, dismissed or subjected to layoff by the employer." Worley v. Division of Employment Security, 978 S.W.2d 480, 483 (Mo. App. 1998). In interpreting section 288.050, the courts "'have required that an employee not have caused dismissal by wrongful action or inaction or choosing not to be employed.'" Ford v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, 841 S.W.2d 255, 257 (Mo. App. 1992) (citation omitted and emphasis in the original).
By not appearing at a court proceeding, which resulted in the issuance of an arrest warrant, her subsequent arrest, incarceration, and absence from work, Ward voluntarily resigned from her employment. Id . at 258-59. She, therefore, was ineligible for unemployment benefits. Ward admitted that she knew she had a scheduled court hearing, that she chose not to appear at the hearing, that her bail had been revoked, and that a warrant had been issued for her arrest because of her failure to appear.
She asserts, however, that her supervisor assured her that her absence would not affect her job. We "examine the whole record to determine if it contains sufficient competent and substantial evidence to suppo
Page 1 2 Missouri Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|