Doran v. Employment Sec. Agency

• Decision Date: 23 February 1954
• Docket Number: No. 8008,8008
• Parties: DORAN v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AGENCY.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 628

267 P.2d 628

75 Idaho 94

DORAN v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AGENCY.

No. 8008.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

Feb. 23, 1954.

Carver, McClenahan & Greenfield, Boise, for appellant.

Robert E. Smylie, Atty. Gen., John W. Gunn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

TAYLOR, Justice.

Prior to October 15, 1952, appellant had been employed as a salesman in the shoe department of the C. C. Anderson Company at Boise. He had been irregular in punching the time clock and the department manager had given him 'leeway' in that regard by O.K.'ing his time card on an average of twice a week. He had gone out for a beer occasionally and on three or four occasions in company with the manager or supervisor of his department. On October 8th at about 10:30 a. m., the manager of the department sent claimant to a repair shop with a pair of shoes. He did not return to the store that day. The manager testified that at about 3:30 p. m. he was advised by a female voice on the telephone that 'Don is drunk. Do you want him to come in?' A witness at the hearing, claiming to be the woman who made the call, denied she informed the manager that claimant was drunk, but had advised him claimant was sick. On the hearing claimant testified the reason for his absence was:

'I had a bad cold and I didn't feel like working and it was slow business and my percentage was pretty well caught up. I had already earned my salary. Made eight percent.'

The next day claimant returned and was reprimanded by the department manager. He continued to work for another week and then, without any previous arrangement or leave, failed to return. The employer did not hear from him for a week and during that time neither he nor anyone for him contacted the employer and, although he claimed to be ill, he admitted to the manager that he had been 'in town.' His contention before the examiner was that he did not return or contact his employer because he had been warned that if he missed another day he need not return. During the week of the claimant's absence the department manager recommended to the personnel manager that he be discharged because he had been drinking and could not be depended on, and another was employed in his place. When he did return, the personnel manager asked him to come back again, suggesting that he might be able to place him in the men's clothing department. Claimant returned three or four times during a period of two weeks, when he was finally advised that he could not be re-employed. Thereafter, claimant applied for unemployment benefits. The employer, being notified of the claim, first replied, 'Was not satisfactory for department manager', and later that his termination was 'due to incompetency in his work.' These, not being grounds for denying eligibility, benefits were paid for four weekly periods. When the employer was notified of the payments being charged to its experience rating, it again protested, to-wit:

'Please be advised that Mr. Doran's conduct was a result of the use of alcohol. This made his employment with our company unsatisfactory, both from his approach to customers and because we could not depend on him for continual service; that is to say he would leave the floor on his own free will, and not return.'

After further investigation the claims examiner determined claimant to be ineligible on the ground 'that he was discharged for misconduct.' At the request of the claimant the matter was then set for hearing before the appeals examiner. A hearing was had and after hearing the testimony of witnesses on both sides, the appeals examiner determined that claimant had voluntarily quit. Claimant urges inconsistency between the determination of the claims examiner that he was discharged for misconduct, and the determination of the appeals examiner that he voluntarily quit. The point, however, does not avail claimant because the record supports both misconduct and that he left his employment voluntarily without good cause. But, in either event, he would not be entitled to benefits, for, if discharged, it was for misconduct, and if he quit, it was voluntarily and without good cause. Cf. Olechnicky v. Director of Division Em. Sec., 325 Mass. 660, 92 N.E.2d 252.

Where an employee temporarily leaves his employment, and assuming that his absence is for good cause, it is his duty to advise his employer of the reason, seek a leave of absence, and keep the employer informed of his intentions and prospects of his returning. Though circumstances may vary these duties, good faith on the part of the employee must always appear. It is the duty of the employee to have regard for the interests of his employer and for his own job security, and to act as a reasonably prudent person whould in keeping contact with his employer and in securing the permanence of his employment. If he fails to do so, and leaves without attempting to secure temporary leave, or fails to take reasonable measures to keep his employer informed, and to secure agreement to his absence, he will be held to have quit voluntarily without good cause. Cierlak v. Mich. U.C.C., 4 C.C.H. § 1975.35; Hall v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Rev., 171 Pa.Super....