Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Com'n v. King, K-M

Decision Date12 August 1983
Docket NumberK-M
Citation657 S.W.2d 250
PartiesKENTUCKY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, Appellant, v. Pamela S. KING andart Corporation, Appellees.
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

Paul F. Fauri, Barbara R. McAdam, Cabinet for Human Resources, Frankfort, for appellant.

Richard W. Born, Danville, for appellee, Pamela S. King.

C.T. Corporation System, Registered Agent for K-Mart Corp., Louisville, for appellees.

Before WHITE, GUDGEL and LESTER, JJ.

WHITE, Judge.

This appeal is taken from a judgment of the Boyle Circuit Court by which it was determined that unemployment benefits should not be denied appellee Pamela King.

As a precedent to employment with K-Mart a number of regulations and policies are reviewed with the worker. Under the Personnel Manager's Checklist heading "Explain rules" is # T: "Friends and relatives when shopping should make purchases from someone other than yourself--eliminate any misunderstandings." Ms. King signed the form indicating that this and all other K-Mart procedures had been explained to her. Nevertheless, although aware of the prohibition regarding dealings with relatives, in April 1982 Ms. King checked out purchases of her mother and sister. The Personnel Manager observed this breach of company policy, and she was discharged.

Prior to July 1982 there was no statutory consideration of what constituted "misconduct" sufficient to disqualify a terminated employee from unemployment benefits. At issue, therefore, is whether as a matter of law the misconduct for which Ms. King was released from K-Mart also served to deny her claim for benefits.

It is said at 76 Am.Jur.2d Unemployment Compensation Sec. 52 that "[t]he basic principle at the root of an unemployment compensation statute ... is ... the benefit of persons unemployed through no fault of their own." The section continues by noting that "an act of wanton or wilful disregard of the employer's interest, a deliberate violation of the employer's rules" would support exclusion from benefits whereas "mere mistakes, inefficiency, [or] unsatisfactory conduct" would not. (Emphasis added.)

The Referee and the Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission held:

KRS 341.370(1)(b) provides for a disqualification when an employee is discharged because of misconduct connected with their work.

The Courts have defined misconduct as being a wilful or a wanton disregard of the legitimate business of the employer.

In this case, whether or not the claimant was guilty of any legal wrongdoing is not relevant. She was aware of the company's policy...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • Thompson v. Kentucky Unemployment Ins.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 26 Abril 2002
    ...Railroad Commission v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., Ky., 490 S.W.2d 763, 766 (1973). 11. See Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission v. King, Ky.App., 657 S.W.2d 250, 251 (1983); Piper, supra at 763. 12. See Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission v. Murphy, Ky., 539 S.W.2d 293, 294......
  • Dep't of Labor v. Morel Constr. Co.
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 28 Enero 2011
    ...302 (1963). The function of the court in administrative matters "is one of review, not of reinterpretation." Ky. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n v. King, 657 S.W.2d 250, 251 (Ky.App.1983).ANALYSISWe begin with a discussion of how Kentucky law interprets KOSHA. KOSHA is patterned after its federal ......
  • Associated Healthcare of Jessamine Cnty., LLC. v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 14 Febrero 2014
    ...an administrative action by an agency, the circuit courts are to provide review, not reinterpretation. Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commissioner v. King, Ky.App., 657 S.W.2d 250 (1983). Thus, when substantial evidence exists in the record to support an administrative agency's action, the......
  • Louisville Gas & Elec. Co. v. Ky. Waterways Alliance
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 29 Mayo 2015
    ...agency. Hence, our role is not to reinterpret or reconsider the merits of the parties' claims. Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Comm'n v. King, 657 S.W.2d 250, 251 (Ky. App. 1983). Rather, we will only overturn an agency's decision if the agency acted arbitrarily or outside the scope of its autho......
  • 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