Higgins v. Patterson Pools9/26/2000
mployer was present, appellant failed to appear. Following the employer's presentation of evidence, the hearing officer concluded that appellant had been discharged with just cause and benefits were inappropriate. Although appellant requested a further review, the commission issued a decision disallowing his application to institute further appeal. Appellant then appealed the decision denying benefits to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed the commission's decision.
In his single assignment of error, appellant contends the common pleas court erred in affirming the commission's determination that he was terminated with just cause and therefore is not entitled to benefits.
Reviewing courts may reverse "just cause" determinations "if they are unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence." R.C. 4141.28(O). Tzangas, Plaka & Mannos v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 694, 696, citing Irvine v. Unemp. Comp. Bd. of Rev. (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 15, 17-18. See, also, Vickers v. Ohio State Bur. of Emp. Serv. (Apr. 22, 1999), Franklin App. No. 98AP-656, unreported. On review, this court is not "permitted to make factual findings or to determine the credibility of witnesses, [but does] have the duty to determine whether the board's decision is supported by the evidence in the record." Tzangas, at 696.
R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(a) provides that a claimant who is discharged from his employment "with just cause" is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation. Vickers, supra. Just cause determinations in the unemployment compensation context, however, also must be consistent with the legislative purpose underlying the Unemployment Compensation Act. The act exists "to enable unfortunate employees, who become and remain involuntarily unemployed by adverse business and industrial conditions, to subsist on a reasonably decent level and is in keeping with the humanitarian and enlightened concepts of this modern day." (Emphasis sic.) Tzangas, at 697; see, also, Vickers, supra. "Traditionally, just cause, in the statutory sense, is that which, to an ordinarily intelligent person, is a justifiable reason for doing or not doing a particular act." Irvine at 17, citing Peyton v. Sun T.V. (1975), 44 Ohio App.2d 10, 12.
A finding of just cause depends on the unique factual circumstances of the particular case. Vickers, citing Irvine at 17. "If an employer has been reasonable in finding fault on behalf of an employee, then the employer may terminate the employee with just cause." Tzangas, at 698. "The claimant has the burden of proving entitlement to unemployment compensation benefits under the statutory provisions." Vickers, supra, citing Irvine, at 17.
As appellant notes, the critical issue in a just cause determination is not whether an employee technically violated a company rule; rather, the issue is whether the dismissal is premised on an employee's actions which demonstrate an unreasonable disregard for an employer's best interest. Piazza v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv. (1991), 72 Ohio App.3d 353, 357; Kiikka v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv. (1985), 21 Ohio App.3d 168, 169.
Here, one of the employer's asserted reasons for terminating appellant's employment was his unexcused absence from three days of work, Thursday, Friday, and Monday. Whether appellant's actions violate the three unexcused absence rule is debatable, since he was terminated shortly after the third workday began. Cf. Stewart v. Lintern Corp. (May 29, 1987), Geauga App. No. 1335, unreported.
Even if appellant did not violate the three unexcused absence rule, his actions suggest insubordination, or disobedience to authority that viol
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|