H & S Hardware v. Cecil

• Decision Date: 12 August 1983
• Citation: 655 S.W.2d 38
• Parties: H & S HARDWARE, Appellant, v. Michele CECIL and Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission, Appellees.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

Page 38

655 S.W.2d 38

H & S HARDWARE, Appellant, v. Michele CECIL and Kentucky Unemployment Insurance

Commission, Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Aug. 12, 1983.

As Modified Aug. 26, 1983.

J. Michael Poole, Louisville, for appellant.

Kenneth A. Connelly, Jr., Segal, Isenberg, Sales & Stewart, Louisville, William K. Moore, Dept. for Human Resources, Frankfort, for appellees.

Before HOWERTON, COOPER and DUNN, JJ.

DUNN, Judge.

Appellant, H & S Hardware, appeals from the Jefferson Circuit Court's summary judgment awarding unemployment benefits to appellee, Michele Cecil, thus reversing the Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission's final decision that she was not entitled to unemployment benefits.

She began her employment with H & S as a part-time employee in August 1978. In May, 1980, she accepted a position of full-time employment with the company at $5.50 per hour. Her work week was for 40 hours. At that rate her annual salary was $11,400.00. There was an understanding that in November, 1980, her annual earnings would be increased to at least $12,000.00. Even though this increase was not forthcoming, she continued to work without protest under the same terms and conditions until March, 1981.

She then approached the company regarding the raise, demanding an increase of $1.50 per hour for a total of $7.00 per hour. At that rate for 40 hours per week her annual wage would have been $14,560.00. The company countered by offering her an immediate raise of $.50 per hour to $6.00 per hour, or an annual wage at 40 hours of $12,480.00, with two additional $.50 per hour raises at future dates. She did not thereafter contact her employer in this regard before she resigned on April 24, 1981, giving as her reason the company's breach of the agreement concerning the raise in salary.

Her claim for unemployment insurance benefits was denied by an examiner's adjusted determination that she voluntarily terminated her employment without good cause. She appealed from the adjusted determination and the appeals referee affirmed the adjusted determination of denial of her claim. On her appeal from the referee's decision, the commission in its order affirming the referee's decision adopted his findings of fact and conclusions of law and denied appellant's claim for benefits.

The findings of fact in the referee's decision adopted by the commission contain a specific finding that the appellee voluntarily quit suitable employment without good cause. If the findings of an administrative agency are supported by substantial evidence of probative value, which we so find, they must be accepted as binding upon the reviewing court and then it must be determined whether or not the agency misapplied the correct rule of law to facts so found. Tackett v. Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission, Ky.App., 630 S.W.2d 76 (1982), Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission, Ky., 437 S.W.2d 775 (1969).

The Jefferson Circuit Court in entering summary judgment in favor of the appellee held the commission's order was "not supported by substantial evidence of productive [sic] value, and misapplied the pertinent law," and reversed the order. It...