Langlois v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act
| Decision Date | 08 January 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 131446,131446 |
| Citation | 188 A.2d 507,24 Conn.Supp. 177 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | Edgar R. LANGLOIS v. ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT. |
James C. Parakilas, Thompsonville, for plaintiff.
Albert L. Coles, Atty. Gen., and Harry Silverstone, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act.
This is an appeal by the administrator of the unemployment compensation act from the decision of the unemployment compensation commissioner for the first congressional district reversing the decision of the administrator that the plaintiff was not entitled to benefits for the statutory disqualification period because he had been discharged for wilful misconduct during the course of his employment. General Statutes § 31-236(2)(b).
The commissioner found the following facts: The plaintiff's hours of employment were from 8 a. m. to 4:30 p. m. from the date he was hired, on February 5, 1962, to the day he was discharged, on April 20, 1962. The plaintiff was late on twenty-six occasions, ranging from one minute to thirty-three minutes. On twenty of these days, he was late five minutes or less. A company rule permitted employees to be allowed the first five minutes of the workday without loss of pay, but a loss of pay would be incurred when tardy for more than five minutes. The plaintiff had been warned on three occasions concerning his tardiness. Although late on twenty-one days between February 5 and April 9, he was given an increase in pay effective April 9. The commissioner found that the plaintiff lived ten miles from the plant and that there was no basic reason for the tardiness other than carelessness in failing to start earlier for work, and that this conduct was careless but not so great in extent or malicious or wilful as to characterize it as wilful misconduct.
The commissioner further found that during the entire month of April the company had no welding for the plaintiff and assigned him to the shipping department and that on the day before he was terminated he was told by an assistant foreman that his layoff was imminent due to the lack of welding work. The commissioner concluded that the conduct of the plaintiff was not wilful misconduct and held that he should have been granted benefits. It is from this conclusion that the administrator has appealed, and the only issue before this court is whether the conclusion reached by the commissioner was arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal.
Misconduct is any wrong or improper conduct and becomes wilful if it is done intentionally, that is,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vester v. Board of Review of Oklahoma Employment Sec. Com'n
...S.W.2d 418 (Ct.App.1980); Maywood Glass Co. v. Stewart, 170 Cal.App.2d 719, 339 P.2d 947 (1959); Langlois v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 24 Conn.Sup. 177, 188 A.2d 507 (1963); Spaulding v. Florida Industrial Commission, 154 So.2d 334 (Fla.Ct.App.1963); Mandes v. Employment......
-
United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Administrator Unemployment Compensation Act, 13461
...evinces 'disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee....' Langlois v. Administrator, 24 Conn.Sup. 177, 179 [188 A.2d 507 (1963) ]." The court itself undertook to make such a determination and, holding that the claimant had been discharged fo......
-
Shaw v. Employment Sec. Dept.
...American Process Lettering, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd., 50 Pa.Commw.Ct. 272, 412 A.2d 1123 (1980); Langlois v. Administrator, Unempl. Comp. Act, 24 Conn.Sup. 177, 188 A.2d 507 (1963). However, there are no general guidelines or "rules of thumb" that define when tardiness becomes chronic......
-
Wardach v. Employment Security Department of the State of Washington, No. 51457-1-I (Wash. App. 11/10/2003)
...Process Lettering, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd., 50 Pa. Commw. Ct. 272, 412 A.2d 1123 (1980) and Langlois v. Administrator, Unempl. Comp. Act, 24 Conn.Sup. 177, 188 A.2d 507 (1963), as examples of tardiness that established misconduct. Shaw, 46 Wn. App. at 615. In American Process Letteri......