Green v. District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Board, 5381.
| Decision Date | 12 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 5381.,5381. |
| Citation | 273 A.2d 479 |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Levester GREEN, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD, Respondent. Woodward & Lothrop, Inc., Intervenor. |
George A. Ross, F. G. Gordon, Jr. and Russell L. Carter, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for respondent.
Timothy J. Bloomfield, Washington, D. C., with whom John J. Ross, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for intervenor.
Before HOOD, Chief Judge, and KERN and NEBEKER, Associate Judges.
This is a petition from a determination of the District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). The appeals examiner1 found that petitioner's failure without reasonable excuse to report for duty on June 26, 1969, and his insulting the training representative on June 18, 1969, constituted statutory misconduct2 and consequently denied him certain unemployment compensation benefits for a period of 5 weeks.
Petitioner, an employee in intervenor's delivery department, contends that these findings are not supported by substantial evidence. We agree that the finding of statutory misconduct predicated on absence without excuse is in error and we remand the case for reconsideration by the Board.
The record indicates that employment terms and conditions were governed by a collective bargaining contract. The contract provided for an unequal 5-day work week of a minimum 37½ hours and a maximum of 40 hours. The company retained the right to designate the employee's particular work schedule. The contract provided time off for sickness, vacation and legal holidays, but no provision was made for time off to take care of personal business. Nevertheless, the company recognized such a need and established procedures to provide for it in its delivery service manual. It stated:
Petitioner made the required call stating he would not be in as he had personal business to transact. The supervisors were not available and notice was thus given to another company employee who, in turn, communicated the notice to the supervisors when they returned. Petitioner's leave request was rejected later in the day for lack of specificity. Shortly thereafter, he, was discharged.
There is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mawakana v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of the D.C
...accept as part of the agreement." Wash. Welfare Ass'n, Inc. v. Wheeler, 496 A.2d 613, 615 (D.C.1985), citing Green v. D.C. Unemployment Comp. Bd., 273 A.2d 479, 480 (D.C.1971) (where collective bargaining contract did not provide employees with time off to take care of personal business, su......
-
Millen v. Caldwell, 40983
...So.2d 282 (La.App.1975); Woodson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 461 Pa. 439, 336 A.2d 867 (1975); Green v. Dist. of Columbia Unemployment Comp. Bd., 273 A.2d 479 (D.C.App.1971); Earp v. Fla. Dept. of Commerce, Industrial Relations Commn., 241 So.2d 422 (Fla.App.1970); Industrial Laund......
-
Austin v. Howard University
...and therefore rebut the at-will employment presumption. Wheeler, 496 A.2d at 615 (citing Green v. District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Bd., 273 A.2d 479, 480 (D.C. 1971)). In certain circumstances, provisions of an employee handbook or personnel manual may create contractual right......
-
Tyler v. George Wash. Med. Faculty Assocs., 11–AA–1127.
...Jadallah, 476 A.2d at 677 (no substantial evidence that employee intended to act dishonestly); Green v. District of Columbia Unemp't Comp. Bd., 273 A.2d 479, 480 (D.C.1971) (employee who notified supervisors of absence from work due to personal business did not commit misconduct, because no......