Hutchinson v. J. R. Simplot Co.
| Decision Date | 27 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 12225,12225 |
| Citation | 563 P.2d 404,98 Idaho 346 |
| Parties | K. Jolene HUTCHINSON, Claimant-Appellant, v. J. R. SIMPLOT COMPANY, Employer, and Department of Employment, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
K. Jolene Hutchinson, pro se.
R. LaVar Marsh, Deputy Atty. Gen., Roger G. Madsen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boise, for defendants-respondents.
This is an appeal from an order of the Industrial Commission upholding the Department of Employment's denial of unemployment compensation benefits to the claimant appellant K. Jolene Hutchinson. Hutchinson had applied for benefits after being discharged by her employer J. R. Simplot Co. The Department of Employment had denied her benefits on the ground that she had been discharged for misconduct for violating company rules connected with her employment. See I.C. § 72-1366(e).
While violation of an employer's rules is not, per se, misconduct which will render an employee ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits, Wroble v. Bonners Ferry Ranger Station, 97 Idaho 900, 556 P.2d 859 (1976); Avery v. B & B Rental Toilets, 97 Idaho 611, 549 P.2d 270 (1976) deliberate violation of reasonable company rules ordinarily is misconduct which renders the claimant ineligible, cf. Wroble v. Bonners Ferry Ranger Station, supra; Avery v. B & B Rental Toilets,supra.
In this case the Industrial Commission found that the claimant Hutchinson had violated company rules because she had used company typewriters to write private letters during business hours and had repeatedly made private use of company telephones during working hours and had continued to do so after being warned about her violations. These findings are supported by substantial, though conflicting, evidence and will not be disturbed on appeal. I.C. §§ 72-1368(i), 7...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spruell v. Allied Meadows Corp.
...of Employment, 99 Idaho 290, 581 P.2d 336 (1978); Booth v. City of Burley, 99 Idaho 229, 580 P.2d 75 (1978); Hutchinson v. J.R. Simplot Co., 98 Idaho 346, 563 P.2d 404 (1977). Further, our review in cases involving factual disputes is restricted to determining whether findings of fact by th......
-
Meyer v. Skyline Mobile Homes
...evidence and will not be disturbed on appeal. Booth v. City of Burley, 99 Idaho 229, 580 P.2d 75 (1978); Hutchinson v. J. R. Simplot Co., 98 Idaho 346, 563 P.2d 404 (1977). Meyer contends that the work Skyline offered was unsuitable. He bases this contention upon two distinct provisions of ......
-
Jensen v. Siemsen
...of Employment, 99 Idaho 290, 581 P.2d 336 (1978); Booth v. City of Burley, 99 Idaho 229, 580 P.2d 75 (1978); Hutchinson v. J.R. Simplot Co., 98 Idaho 346, 563 P.2d 404 (1977). Furthermore, our review in cases involving factual disputes is restricted to determining whether findings of fact b......
-
Jenkins v. Agri-Lines Corp.
...99 Idaho 229, 580 P.2d 75 (1978); Simmons v. Department of Employment, 99 Idaho 290, 581 P.2d 336 (1978); Hutchinson v. J. R. Simplot Co., 98 Idaho 346, 563 P.2d 404 (1977). The Industrial Commission found that although Jenkins requested his nephew to notify Jenkins' supervisor of his inten......