Geraths v. Employment Division
| Decision Date | 26 January 1976 |
| Citation | 544 P.2d 1066,24 Or.App. 201 |
| Parties | Gloria J. GERATHS, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION, and Artz Photo, Inc., a corporation, Respondents. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
David W. Hittle, Salem, and Dye & Olson, Salem, for petitioner.
Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., W. Michael Gillette, Sol. Gen., and Al J. Laue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, for respondents.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and FORT and THORNTON, JJ.
Claimant appeals from the decision of the Employment Appeals Board which denied her unemployment benefits on the ground that she was discharged from her employment for misconduct. ORS 657.176(2)(a).
Claimant was employed by respondent, Artz Photo in Salem, as a photoprinter starting in 1972. On June 2, 1975, she received a telephone call at work from her 19-year-old daughter in Eugene. Her daughter had been emotionally upset for several days because of the sudden death of a close friend, and had planned to attend the funeral scheduled for the afternoon of June 2 in Coos Bay, with friends. When those plans for transportation failed to materialize, she became hysterical and telephoned claimant at work.
Claimant responded to the call from her daughter by notifying the lead printer that she had to leave immediately and that she would explain the next day. Claimant then left work. Claimant testified that she failed to notify her supervisor because she believed the supervisor was out of the plant. Claimant's supervisor was generally aware of the situation concerning claimant's daughter and had offered her the day off. Claimant had declined the day off since at that time the daughter had made other arrangements for transportation to Coos Bay.
When claimant returned to work the next day she was called before Richard Wright, the plant manager, to explain her leaving work the day before. Claimant was subsequently discharged.
Claimant applied for unemployment benefits June 4 and the administrator allowed her claim. The employer requested a hearing before the referee who upheld the award of benefits. Employer appealed to the Board which reversed the referee and denied claimant benefits. Claimant appeals pursuant to ORS 183.480.
The sole question before the referee and the Board was whether claimant's conduct in leaving work under the above circumstances constituted 'misconduct' within the meaning of that term as used in ORS 657.176(2)(a).
A recent decision by this court, Georgia-Pacific v. Employment Div., 21 Or.App. 135, 533 P.2d 829 (1975) involved this same issue. In that case the claimant was discharged for involvement in a scuffle with a fellow employe on the job. We held that a decision by both the referee and the Board--that the scuffling incident was not so seriously improper as to disqualify claimant under the 'misconduct' provision of the employment law--was legally correct.
In our opinion we made reference to 76 Am.Jur.2d 945--47, § 52 (1975), which in discussing the term 'misconduct' in this context notes:
'* * * (M)isconduct within the meaning of an unemployment compensation act excluding from its benefits an employee discharged for misconduct must be an act of wanton or wilful disregard of the employer's interest, a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of his employee, or negligence in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blueshield v. Job Service North Dakota
...N.W.2d 142, 145 (Minn.1984); Goodwin v. Employment Division, 35 Or.App. 299, 581 P.2d 115, 117 (1978); and Geraths v. Employment Division, 24 Or.App. 1066, 544 P.2d 1066 (1976). 3 We have recently held, however, that a single incident can constitute misconduct disqualifying an employee from......
-
Giese v. Employment Division
...by a number of decisions of this court. See, for example, Georgia-Pacific v. Employment Div., supra; Geraths v. Employment Division, 24 Or.App. 201, 544 P.2d 1066 (1976). In Georgia-Pacific we held that a mill worker who had engaged in a scuffle with a fellow employe and was subsequently fi......
-
Precision Castparts Corp. v. Employment Div., AB-512
...compensation. See Giese v. Employment Div., 27 Or App 929, 933, 557 P2d 1354 (1976) rev den (1977); Geraths v. Employment Division, 24 Or App 201, 544 P2d 1066 (1976); T. Broden, Law of Social Security and Unemployment Insurance, § 12.01 (1962). While an employer may discharge an employe fo......
-
Steele v. Employment Dept.
...639, 567 P.2d 617 (1977); Babcock v. Employment Div., 25 Or.App. 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......