Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Co. v. Jones

Decision Date25 January 1991
Docket NumberNo. 90-CA-928-MR,90-CA-928-MR
PartiesKENTUCKY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, Appellant, v. Gary JONES, Ricky Osborne, Gregory Boger, Ronald Gupton, Jeffrey Baxter, Clifton Bishop, James Gardner, James Doyle, Larry Brummett, Robert Beard, and Batesville Casket Company, Appellees.
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

John H. Walker, Frankfort, for appellant.

David William Hupp, Edwin Hopson, Louisville, Phil A. Bertram, Campbellsville, for appellees.

Before LESTER, C.J., and HOWARD and McDONALD, JJ.

HOWARD, Judge.

The Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission appeals a judgment of the Taylor Circuit Court in which suspended employees were ruled to be entitled to unemployment compensation benefits.

The individual appellees are all employees of Batesville Casket Company. The employees engaged in certain actions while picketing Batesville Casket. As a result of these actions, the employees were suspended on March 19, 1989, pending an investigation by the company. Batesville Casket subsequently notified the employees that it determined not to terminate their employment and that the suspensions were being lifted as of March 16, 1989. However, one of the appellee employees, James Doyle, who was originally suspended, was discharged by the company.

The employees filed unemployment compensation claims which were denied. The reasons given for the denials were that the suspensions were a result of work-related misconduct. The employees appealed and a hearing was held before a referee on consolidated appeals. The referee upheld the initial denial of compensation. The commission issued a final order on July 26, 1989, affirming the referee's decision.

The employees filed an appeal with the Taylor Circuit Court. The trial court upheld the commission's finding that the employees had engaged in misconduct. The trial court did not agree that suspension for misconduct disqualifies an employee from compensation because KRS 341.370 only provides for disqualification in the event of "discharge" for misconduct. The trial court further found that James Doyle was properly denied benefits once he was discharged. The commission appeals to this Court only on the issue of whether suspension for misconduct results in disqualification for unemployment compensation.

KRS 341.370(1) provides in pertinent part that [a] worker shall be disqualified from receiving benefits for the duration of any period of unemployment with respect to which: ... (b) He has been discharged for misconduct or dishonesty connected to his most recent work...." In KRS 341.370(6), " 'discharge for misconduct' ... shall include, but not be limited to separation initiated by an employer...." Following the quoted portion of KRS 371.370(6) is a list of examples of what might constitute misconduct.

The commission points out that the legislative purpose in enacting the unemployment compensation act was "to provide benefits only for those employes who have been forced to leave their employment because of forces beyond their control and not because of any voluntary act of their own." Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission v. Kroehler Manufacturing Company, Ky., 352 S.W.2d 212, 214 (1961). The commission argues that the appellees' conduct resulted in their suspension and thus, to award them benefits would be contrary to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Commonwealth ex rel. Logan Cnty. Attorney v. Williams, 2018-CA-000304-MR
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 20 Septiembre 2019
    ...result." Holbrook v. Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Com'n, 290 S.W.3d 81, 86 (Ky. App. 2009) (quoting Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Com'n v. Jones, 809 S.W.2d 715, 716 (Ky. App. 1991)).A review of the evidence in this case indicates that although Rhodes was belligerent, the officers could have sti......
  • McElroy v. Taylor
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 15 Octubre 1998
    ...an absurd or wholly unreasonable Conclusion." Bailey v. Reeves, Ky., 662 S.W.2d 832, 834 (1984). See also Ky. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n v. Jones, Ky. App., 809 S.W.2d 715, 716 (1991). Read literally, subparts (2) and (3) grant the district court original jurisdiction over nonadversarial matt......
  • McElroy v. Taylor
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 15 Octubre 1998
    ...an absurd or wholly unreasonable conclusion." Bailey v. Reeves, Ky., 662 S.W.2d 832, 834 (1984). See also Ky. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n v. Jones, Ky.App., 809 S.W.2d 715, 716 (1991). Read literally, subparts (2) and (3) grant the district court original jurisdiction over nonadversarial matte......
  • Wilburn v. Com.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky
    • 17 Junio 2010
    ...accomplished"). We refrain from interpreting a statute so as to produce an absurd or unreasonable result. Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Com'n v. Jones, 809 S.W.2d 715, 716 (Ky.App.1991) ("The courts have a duty to accord statutory language its literal meaning unless to do so would lead to an a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT