Lamb v. Unemployment Appeals Com'n, 82-403
| Decision Date | 05 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-403,82-403 |
| Parties | James A. LAMB, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION and Dump-All, Inc., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Larry Morgan, of Greater Orlando Area Legal Services, Inc., Orlando, for appellant.
James R. Parks and Norman A. Blessing, Tallahassee, for appellee, Unemployment Appeals Com'n.
No appearance for appellee, Dump-All, Inc.
This is an appeal from the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission's determination that Lamb is not entitled to receive unemployment compensation because he was fired by his employer for misconduct. Because we do not think Lamb's conduct as disclosed by the record falls within the definition of misconduct under the Florida Unemployment Compensation Law, 1 we reverse. Swope v. Florida Industrial Commission Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 159 So.2d 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).
Lamb was a truck driver for Dump-All, Inc., a refuse company. Dump-All had strict rules for attendance. If an employee failed to appear for work or call in prior to an absence, he was subject to immediate dismissal. Lamb spent the weekend of October 2, 1981, moving into his new home. Unforeseen problems required Lamb to remain at his new home on Monday, October 5, 1981, and he was not able to call his employer because his telephone was in transfer at that time. Because Lamb did not report to work as scheduled on that Monday, Dump-All immediately terminated Lamb's employment.
The record shows that this was the first and only time Lamb had failed to appear for work without calling his employer. The circumstances of his move and his explanation for not telephoning make his argument plausible that his breach of the employer's rules was less than deliberate and willful. Further, the employer did not controvert Lamb's explanations, and it was apparently not harmed by Lamb's absence on October 5, 1981. In our opinion the actions for which Lamb was fired do not amount to a willful and wanton disregard of his employer's rules, and as such they do not constitute misconduct warranting a disallowance of unemployment benefits. Erber v. Federal Express Corporation, 409 So.2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Spaulding v. Florida Industrial Commission, 154 So.2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).
REVERSED.
1 Misconduct is defined under the Unemployment Compensation Law as:
(a) Conduct evincing such willful or wanton...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schadler v. Job Service North Dakota, 10786
...unexcused absence from work constitutes willful misconduct]. The fact that the employer refuse company in Lamb v. Unemployment Appeals Com'n, 424 So.2d 197 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983), was not hurt by the employee truck driver's absence was given due consideration in determining whether or not t......
-
Goldstein v. Ury Kalai, M.D., P.A., 85-96
...added, citations omitted); Fredericks v. Fla. Dept. of Commerce, 323 So.2d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Thus, in Lamb v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 424 So.2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), a finding that an employee's missing a day of work without calling in constituted misconduct was reversed w......
-
Barnett v. Mississippi Employment Sec. Com'n
...See, Mississippi Employment Sec. Comm'n v. Phillips, 562 So.2d at 118 (objective standard); See e.g. Lamb v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n., 424 So.2d 197 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983) (no misconduct when employee failed to call in because he was in the middle of a move and his phone was in transfer......
-
Bates v. Unemployment Appeals Com'n, 94-02198
...exhibit an intentional disregard of her duties and obligations to her employer." 646 So.2d at 262. See also Lamb v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 424 So.2d 197 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Ms. Bates should have had her mother call to update the employer regarding the status of her illness. Her f......