Bauer v. Morgan
Decision Date | 19 March 1974 |
Citation | 517 P.2d 689,16 Or.App. 132 |
Parties | Richard A. BAUER, Petitioner, v. Ross MORGAN, Administrator, Employment Division, and Overhead Door Company of Oregon, Inc., a corporation, Respondents. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Barbee B. Lyon, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner.
Al J. Laue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent Ross Morgan, Administrator, Employment Division. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., and W. Michael Gillette, Sol. Gen., Salem.
No appearance by respondent Overhead Door Company of Oregon, Inc.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and LANGTRY and FOLEY, JJ.
From a denial of unemployment compensation benefits, claimant appeals. Claimant assigns as error two findings of fact by the Appeals Board and its conclusion of law that he was discharged for misconduct connected with his work. 1
Claimant worked at the Salem plant of the Overhead Door Company from September 1972 until January 30, 1973, when he was discharged. The Appeals Board made the following findings of fact:
Claimant challenges findings six and seven, asserting that the leadman was 'riding' him and that his behavior toward the leadman was a reaction to what he considered unfair treatment. One of the employer's witnesses who worked near claimant confirmed this to some extent and testified that the leadman had been in a bad mood the two weeks previous to and including the day claimant was discharged.
Regardless of the challenged findings of fact, claimant was not discharged because he could not get along with the leadman. The foreman attempted to resolve the problem by transferring claimant to another department. The foreman testified that claimant refused to be transferred, and so was fired. Claimant said he did not refuse, and, in fact, said he would move to the new department, but that he wanted the foreman to explain in front of a witness his reasons for transferring claimant rather than the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Giese v. Employment Division
...with his work. In Romanosky v. Employment Division, 21 Or.App. 785, 788, 536 P.2d 1277, 1279 (1975), we stated: 'In Bauer v. Morgan, 16 Or.App. 132, 135, 517 P.2d 689, Sup.Ct. Reviewed denied (1974), the court recognized that 'misconduct' as used in ORS 657.176 is defined as "* * * delibera......
-
Steele v. Employment Dept.
...661, 664-65, 550 P.2d 1233 (1976); Geraths v. Employment Division, 24 Or.App. 201, 204-05, 544 P.2d 1066 (1976); Bauer v. Morgan, 16 Or.App. 132, 135, 517 P.2d 689, rev den (1974). The department assails claimant's reliance on each of those cases, except one which it does not mention. It ma......
-
Margolin v. Employment Division
...* * * (or) disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee * * *.' " Bauer v. Morgan, 16 Or.App. 132, 135, 517 P.2d 689, 691, Sup.Ct. review denied (1974). Here, given the nature of claimant's job, the Employment Appeals Board could and did conc......
-
Romanosky v. Employment Division
...meaning of ORS 657.176(2)(a). Cf. Georgia-Pacific v. Employment Div., Or.App., 75 Adv.Sh. 1450, 533 P.2d 829 (1975). In Bauer v. Morgan, 16 Or.App. 132, 135, 517 P.2d 689, Sup.Ct. review denied (1974), the court recognized that 'misconduct' as used in ORS 657.176 is defined as "* * * delibe......