Maywood Glass Co. v. Stewart

• Decision Date: 27 May 1959
• Citation: 170 Cal.App.2d 719,339 P.2d 947
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: MAYWOOD GLASS CO., a Corporation, Petitioner and Appellant, v. H. W. STEWART, Director of Employment, Defendant and Respondent. Civ. 23621.

Page 947

339 P.2d 947

170 Cal.App.2d 719

MAYWOOD GLASS CO., a Corporation, Petitioner and Appellant, v. H. W. STEWART, Director of Employment, Defendant and Respondent.

Civ. 23621.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 2, California.

May 27, 1959.

Edwin C. Boehler, Francis R. Dwyer, A. T. Fulsom, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William L. Shaw, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

HERNDON, Justice.

By a decision rendered March 7, 1958, the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board allowed claimant, Gladys M. Witt, certain unemployment insurance benefits, rejecting the contentions of her erstwhile employer, Maywood Glass Co., that she was ineligible for such benefits because she had been discharged for misconduct. Maywood thereupon filed a petition in the Superior Court for a writ of mandate to compel the Appeals Board to set aside its order allowing benefits and charging Maywood's reserve account with the amount paid. The entire cause was submitted to the lower court on a certified administrative record of the Appeals Board. The trial court found that the weight of the evidence supported the decision of the Appeals Board and that Maywood was not deprived of any substantial rights in the antecedent administrative proceedings. Judgment was entered for the respondent Director of Employment. Maywood appeals contending (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment and (2) that the Appeals Board was guilty of an abuse of discretion in failing to consider certain affidavits submitted by Maywood.

Under provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Code, the Director of Employment maintains separate reserve accounts for each employer, crediting his account with contributions made and charging it with benefits paid. Unemployment Insurance Code, § 1025 et seq. However, the employer's reserve account is not charged if the claimant was discharged '* * * by reason of misconduct connected with his work'. Unemployment Insurance Code, § 1032. Section 1256 of the Unemployment Insurance Code provides: 'An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if the director finds that he left his most recent work voluntarily without good cause or that he has been discharged for misconduct connected with his most recent work.

'An individual is presumed to have been discharged for reasons other than misconduct in connection with his work and not to have voluntarily left his work without good cause unless his employer has given written notice to the contrary to the director within five days after the termination of service, setting forth facts sufficient to overcome the presumption. If the employer files such notice, the question shall immediately be determined in the same manner as benefit claims.'

The facts of the instant case are not complex. Claimant Witt had been employed by Maywood Glass Company as a selector and packer of glass products for approximately five years. On November 20, 1957, Maywood gave her notice of discharge as the result of her packing of certain defective merchandise. Mrs. Witt's employment terminated on November 26, 1957, and she filed a claim for unemployment benefits on December 1, 1957.

Maywood was notified of the claim and on December 5, 1957, reported to the Department of Employment that Mrs. Witt 'was discharged for consistently refusing to follow instructions * * *' and that '* * * she willfully persisted in packing imperfect bottles into the cartons. After being warned about this on several occasions * * * she was discharged. We believe that the claimant was guilty of misconduct in that she willfully disregarded her instructions * * *'

On December 26, 1957, in an interview before the Department of Employment Mrs. Witt stated, 'I was fired because I packed some bad glassware. I knew better as I have been packing and selecting for the past 5 years and more. The reason I packed bad glassware was because of the rapidity in which we were working. I had a headache. I had been warned about this refusing to follow instructions * * *'

On December 26, 1957, the Department of Employment issued a ruling that claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with her work and was therefore disqualified from receiving benefits. She filed an appeal from the ruling, and on January 27, 1958, a hearing was held before a referee of the Department of Employment at which were present the claimant, a representative of Maywood, and a representative of the Department of Employment. Testimony was taken under oath and various exhibits accepted.

Robert D. Harper, an auditor for Maywood, represented the company and testified in its behalf. He admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the circumstances of Mrs. Witt's discharge. However, he testified that he had verified the allegations of Maywood's report of December 6, by contacting Joseph Shasha, Maywood's Packing Superintendent. Harper testified that Shasha informed him that he [Shasha] had warned claimant on several occasions preceding her discharge about packing defective glassware.

Mrs. Witt testified that her foreman at Maywood Glass Company was Dick Swanson; that he never had occasion to warn her about defective packing; that Shasha was her supervisor next in line; that Shasha had notified her of her discharge on November 20, but that she had never had any conversations with either supervisor regarding defective merchandise she had packed. During the course of the hearing the referee asked the claimant whether she had ever been warned by her supervisors that she would be discharged if her work did not improve and claimant gave a negative reply. Mr. Harper made no request for a continuance, and the following day the referee issued a decision allowing claimant benefits and holding that she was not disqualified because of misconduct under section 1256 of the Code. Maywood appealed from the decision of the referee to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. Attached to the notice of appeal were three affidavits by Shasha and two other Maywood packing shift foremen to the effect that they had warned Mrs. Witt not to pack faulty ware prior to her notification of discharge. The Appeals Board declined to accept or consider these supplementary affidavits and returned them to Maywood. Thereafter, the Board issued a...