Babcock v. Employment Division
Citation | 25 Or.App. 661,550 P.2d 1233 |
Parties | Robert BABCOCK, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION, and Dallas Planing Mill, Respondents. |
Decision Date | 14 June 1976 |
Court | Court of Appeals of Oregon |
Steve K. Miyasaka, Marion-Polk Legal Aid Service, Inc., Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner.
Rhidian M. M. Morgan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent Employment Division. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., and W. Michael Gillette, Sol. Gen., Salem.
No appearence for respondent Dallas Planing Mill.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and FORT and LEE, JJ.
Claimant appeals a denial of his claim for unemployment benefits made by the Employment Appeals Board, one member dissenting. ORS 657.176(2) provides:
'If the authorized representative designated by the administrator finds:
'(a) The individual has been discharged for misconduct connected with his work, or '(c) The individual voluntarily left work without good cause, * * *
the individual shall be disqualified from the receipt of benefits * * *.'
There are two issues raised. The first is whether claimant was discharged or whether he left work voluntarily. The board adopted the referee's opinion finding that claimant was discharged. There is substantial evidence in the record to support its conclusion that claimant did not voluntarily leave work without good cause. Thus ORS 657.176(2)(c) does not apply.
The second issue is whether claimant was discharged 'for misconduct connected with his work.' ORS 657.176(2)(a). The referee and a dividied board concluded that he was discharged for misconduct based on the following findings of fact:
There is substantial evidence in the record to support these findings.
It is conceded here that the employer did discharge the claimant at the time and in the manner set forth in the above findings. Thus the sole question before the referee and the board was whether claimant's actions constituted 'misconduct connected with his work' under that statute.
We consider first the question of upon whom the burden of proof rests to establish 'misconduct connected with his work' under the statute. We have previously had occasion to cite with approval major portions of 76 Am.Jur.2d 945, Unemployment Compensation § 52. Geraths v. Employment Division, 24 Or.App. 201, 544 P.2d 1066 (1976); Romanosky v. Employment Div., 21 Or.App. 785, 536 P.2d 1277 (1975); Georgia-Pacific v. Employment Div., 75 Adv.Sh. 1450, 1452, 21 Or.App. 135, 533 P.2d 829 (1975). In 76 Am.Jur.2d it states:
'* * * Furthermore, where an employer charges a claimant with such misconduct as would bring about his disqualification from unemployment compensation benefits, it is incumbent upon the employer to sustain the charge by a reasonable preponderance of the evidence.' (Footnote omitted; 76 Am.Jur.2d at 946.)
In Industrial Lndry, v. Rev. Bd., 147 Ind.App. 40, 258 N.E.2d 160 (1970), the court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parker v. St. Maries Plywood
...181 (1967); Michigan Tool Co. v. Michigan Employment Security Comm'n, 346 Mich. 673, 78 N.W.2d 571 (1956); Babcock v. Employment Division, 25 Or.App. 661, 550 P.2d 1233 (1976); Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Tumalo, 25 Pa.Cmwlth. 264, 360 A.2d 763 (1976); Transport Oil, Inc. v......
-
Franklin v. Emp't Dep't
...decisions hold that * * * an employer has the burden of proving that a discharge was for misconduct.”); Babcock v. Employment Div., 25 Or.App. 661, 664, 550 P.2d 1233 (1976) (“The burden of proving claimant's misconduct rests on the employer.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)). Pursuant ......
-
Giese v. Employment Division
...errand without express permission was not guilty of disqualifying 'misconduct' under the same statute. Again, in Babcock v. Employment Div., 25 Or.App. 661, 550 P.2d 1233 (1976), a mill worker was discharged for overstaying a brief temporary leave of absence from work which had been granted......
-
Precision Castparts Corp. v. Employment Div., AB-512
...requiring disqualification from compensation. Dietz v. Smith, 28 OrApp 871, 875, 561 P2d 1032 (1977); Babcock v. Employment Div., 25 OrApp 661, 665, 550 P2d 1233 (1976). On the other hand, isolated acts may constitute misconduct where they involve deliberate violation or disregard of standa......