Bailey v. Rutledge
| Decision Date | 01 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 16382,16382 |
| Parties | Gary D. BAILEY v. Phyllis J. RUTLEDGE, Clerk, etc., et al. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Where an employee refuses a single order to undertake an out-of-state, employment-related journey because of personal difficulties and is subsequently fired, he has not voluntarily quit his employment.
John C. Purbaugh, W. Va. Legal Services Plan, Inc., Charleston, for appellant.
The appellant, Gary D. Bailey, appeals from a final order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. He contends that he was improperly denied unemployment compensation benefits by virtue of an erroneous finding that he left his employment voluntarily. For the reasons set forth below, this Court reverses.
In May of 1980 the appellant had been employed by NRM Petroleum Corporation for about three years. During this time Mr. Bailey worked in Pennsylvania, New York, and Ohio, but spent most of his time in West Virginia. On 6 April 1983 the appellant's immediate superior, Mr. Huffman, ordered the appellant to drive a corporation truck to Ohio. Mr. Bailey, who was having trouble with his wife, asked that another employee take on this duty. Mr. Huffman remained obdurate and insisted that the appellant undertake the journey.
The appellant remained adamant that he could not, at that time, travel to Ohio for personal reasons. Thereupon, Mr. Huffman ordered Mr. Bailey to return his truck to the shop and issued an "Employee Termination Notice" that same day stating that the appellant was "Disatisfied with work" and that he "refused to go to Ohio." Although the record indicates that Mr. Bailey had previous confrontations with his superiors, no single incident resulted in any disciplinary action against him. About the most serious allegation against Mr. Bailey was that once he was caught dozing in his rig.
On 10 May 1983 the deputy commissioner of the West Virginia Department of Employment Security, upon Mr. Bailey's application for unemployment compensation, found him eligible for benefits. However, he was indefinitely disqualified from receiving these benefits, since, according to the deputy commissioner, he had left work voluntarily without cause involving fault on the part of the employer.
Mr. Bailey appealed this decision. A subsequent hearing was held before an administrative law judge on 16 June 1983. The administrative law judge affirmed the deputy commissioner's decision and made the following findings on 22 June 1983:
The reason or necessity for the termination of this employer-employee relationship is the result of the sole decision of the claimant and does not involve any fault on the part of the employer. Consequently, as between claimant and employer, the separation is considered as being the voluntary act of claimant. Therefore, it is determined that claimant left work voluntarily without good cause involving any fault on the part of the employer, and is disqualified from benefits in accordance with Chapter 21A, Article (6) Section 3, Paragraph (1) of the West Virginia Unemployment Compensation Laws.
Undeterred, Mr. Bailey appealed pro se to the Board of Review of the West Virginia Department of Employment Security. His appeal was heard on 10 November 1983 with the Board adopting the findings and decisions of the Administrative Law Judge entirely. The appellant then appealed pro se to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County. On 20 March 1984 the circuit affirmed and sustained the findings and order of the Board of Review.
I
The circuit court's affirmation of the administrative law judge's decision is primarily based upon a finding that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peery v. Rutledge
...law judge. Upon appeal by the petitioner the Circuit Court of Kanawha County affirmed the Board's decision. Quoting Bailey v. Rutledge, --- W. Va. ---, 327 S.E.2d 456 (1985), the Circuit Court held: "Certainly[,] refusing a direct order to perform the job for which an employee is hired is m......
-
Davis v. Gatson
...pt. 1, Lee-Norse Co. v. Rutledge, supra. See also Adkins v. Gatson, 192 W.Va. at 564-65, 453 S.E.2d at 398-99; Bailey v. Rutledge, 174 W.Va. 476, 478, 327 S.E.2d 456, 458 (1985); London v. Bd. of Review of Dept. of Employment Security, 161 W.Va. 575, 576-77, 244 S.E.2d 331, 333 (1978). Acco......
-
Brewster v. Rutledge
...purposes intended to the full extent thereof." Syllabus Point 6, Davis v. Hix, 140 W.Va. 398, 84 S.E.2d 404 (1954); Bailey v. Rutledge, 174 W.Va. 476, 327 S.E.2d 456 (1985); Perfin v. Cole, 174 W.Va. 417, 327 S.E.2d 396 (1985). We do not believe our decision in this case is contrary to legi......
- State v. Franklin, 16142