Fredericks v. Florida Dept. of Commerce, Indus. Relations Commission, 75-867

• Decision Date: 19 December 1975
• Docket Number: No. 75-867,75-867
• Parties: Charles R. FREDERICKS, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, and Riverside Hilton Inn, Respondents.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 286

323 So.2d 286

Charles R. FREDERICKS, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, and Riverside Hilton Inn, Respondents.

No. 75-867.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 19, 1975.

Julius L. Williams of Law, Inc. of Hillsborough County, Tampa, for petitioner.

Alex D. Littlefield, Jr., Tallahassee, for respondent, Florida Dept. of Commerce, Industrial Relations Comm.

GRIMES, Judge.

This is a petition for certiorari to the Industrial Relations Commission following the entry of an order affirming the denial of petitioner's application for unemployment compensation.

Testimony was taken before the appeals referee, and the pertinent portion of his decision is set forth below:

'FINDINGS OF FACT: The claimant was employed as a cook for a hotel in Tampa, Florida, on or about September 24, 1974. Claimant worked six days per week from 3:00 PM to 11:00 PM and had Monday's as his day off. Claimant became ill from October 27, 1974, through October 31, 1974, because of internal bleeding. He was not under doctor's care during this period of illness. His wife called in several times during claimant's period of illness. On November 1, 1974, claimant called in himself and talked to the bar porter to report that he was feeling better and was ready to return to work. Claimant did not report for work on November 2, 1974, and did not report to employer until November 6, 1974. On November 6, 1974, claimant was informed that he had been terminated effective November 1, 1974, as he had failed to report for work after informing the employer that he was again able to work as of November 1, 1974. Claimed (sic) reopened his claim effective February 16, 1975. Since reopening his claim, claimant has been actively seeking full-time employment.

'Claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with his work within the meaning of the Florida Unemployment Compensation Law.

'REASONS FOR DECISION: The Florida Unemployment Compensation Law provides that an individual shall be disqualified for benefits if he has voluntarily left his employment without good cause attributable to his employer, or was discharged for misconduct connected with his work.

'The record and evidence presented in this case reveal that claimant was terminated from his employment when he failed to report for work after reporting that he was again able to resume his duties, and his failure to report his continued absence. Claimant could not say what caused his internal bleeding. He stated this happened once before four or five years ago, and that a doctor at that time stated that it was nothing to worry about, and for this reasons, (sic) he did not consult a physician. His reason for not reporting to work until November 6, 1974, after he felt that he was able to work on November 1, 1974, was the fact that he assumed the employer would call him and advise him when he could return to work. The claimant's actions and circumstances presented in this case constitute a material breach of his duties and obligations arising out of his contract of employment and were tantamount to an intentional disregard of the employer's interest. Such actions constitute 'misconduct connected with work' within the meaning of the Law. Accordingly, it must be concluded that claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with his work within the meaning of the Law.'

The record supports the findings of fact except in one respect. The purpose of petitioner's telephone call on November 1 was to notify his employer he was ready to go back to work. Since petitioner didn't have a telephone, he left his wife's number at work so that he could be told when to come back. Apparently the person who received the call in the absence of petitioner's supervisor misunderstood the message, because the supervisor was advised that petitioner was still sick...