 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Higgins v. Patterson Pools9/26/2000
ates company policy and may result in immediate termination. More particularly, despite agreements with the company to appear at work at specified times, appellant failed to comply with the agreed schedule. While he contends his absence was due to medical problems, he submitted nothing to the employer to support that contention. Nor did he suggest an inability to work due to the medical problems when he committed to being at work at the agreed on times. Appellant's failure to report to work per his agreement with the employer was a disobedience to authority which, even if not fully insubordination under the company policy, was so detrimental to the employer's interest as to allow the employer to terminate appellant with just cause.
Appellant nonetheless contends he was denied due process: he did not appear at the hearing before the commission hearing officer due to allegedly misleading information from a staff member with the commission. Apart from the absence in the record of any indication that appellant was mislead by a staff member, his argument is unpersuasive.
Appellant was provided a notice from the commission that " ach party should arrange to present at the hearing all relevant evidence and all necessary witnesses. Any interested party may appear at the hearing in person or through an attorney or other authorized representative. Whether the parties are represented or not, the hearing officer will develop pertinent facts from the witnesses in attendance, so as to afford a fair and impartial hearing to all interested parties." Moreover, the notice advises that the hearing may be scheduled during non-working hours if it would allow an interested party to be present. Appellant does not suggest he did not receive the notice.
Apart from the opportunity to be present at the hearing, pursuant to R.C. 4141.28(J) appellant had fourteen days after the hearing date to show good cause for his failure to appear. The record contains nothing indicating appellant's attempt to avail himself of those provisions.
Finally, appellant's reliance on Corbin v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv. (1991), 77 Ohio App.3d 626, is unpersuasive, as the facts differ substantially. In Corbin, the discharged employee simply arrived late, and because of his late arrival was never given an opportunity to be heard at the hearing. By contrast, appellant failed to appear altogether, despite having received notice that even in his absence the matter would be heard and determined on the relevant evidence presented. Appellant was not denied due process by his own failure to attend the hearing.
Given the foregoing, appellant's single assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
TYACK and PETREE, JJ., concur.
|