Michael S. Becka v. State of Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission
| Decision Date | 22 March 2002 |
| Docket Number | 02-LW-1137,2001-L-037 |
| Citation | 2002 Ohio 1361 |
| Parties | MICHAEL S. BECKA, Appellant v. STATE OF OHIO UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION REVIEW COMMISSION, et al., Appellee. CASE |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Administrative Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas Case No. 00 CV 000676
HON DONALD R. FORD, P.J., HON. JUDITH A. CHRISTLEY, J., HON DIANE V. GRENDELL, J.
MICHAEL S. BECKA, pro se, 272 East 326th Street, Willowick OH 44095 (Appellant)
BETTY D. MONTGOMERY, ATTORNEY GENERAL, CHARLETT BUNDY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, State Office Building, 11th Floor, 615 West Superior Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44113-1899 (For Appellee)
Appellant, Michael S. Becka, appeals the February 7, 2001 judgment entry of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas affirming the decision of appellee, the state of Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission, which denied him his unemployment compensation benefits.
Appellant was discharged from his employment as an express package deliveryman with Airborne Express on September 21, 1999. Upon his discharge, he applied for unemployment compensation. The administrator for the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services ("OBES") allowed the claim. On November 29, 1999, Airborne Express sought a review of the decision with the OBES administrator. The OBES administrator affirmed the earlier decision. On December 17, 1999, Airborne Express then appealed the decision to OBES, and the matter was subsequently transferred to appellee on December 22, 1999. A hearing was held on January 13, 2000.
The hearing officer for appellee gathered the following facts at the hearing. On September 21, 1999, appellant was working from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. at Airborne Express and was considered an a.m. driver. The work rules allowed drivers to take two fifteen-minute breaks during the day. One break was to be taken during the first four-hour shift, and the other one in the last four-hour shift. Most a.m. drivers postponed their first break until their last express delivery was completed. Airborne Express' company deadline was to deliver packages before noon. Appellant normally took both of his breaks after noon to facilitate meeting the noon deadline.
On the morning of September 21, appellant's supervisor accompanied him on his route. Appellant took his first break at 10:48 a.m. and proceeded to take a second break at 11:35 a.m. His supervisor told him to come off of his second break and gave him two minutes to comply with the order, but appellant did not respond. Appellant's supervisor then told him that he had one minute and fifteen seconds to follow the work order. After the time lapsed, appellant's supervisor told him to go to the passenger seat. His supervisor drove the truck back to the Airborne Express garage.
Thereafter, appellant was advised of his insubordination and told that he was considered to have voluntarily quit for his failure to complete a work order. Appellant filed a grievance with his union, and while the unemployment matters were pending, he was reinstated on November 29, 1999. The dismissal was now to be considered a suspension by the company as a result of the grievance resolution, and it was the second suspension in that year. Appellant admitted that it was his practice to always take two breaks before noon on the days after he received disciplinary letters. On September 20, 1999, appellant had received such a letter.
The hearing officer of appellee reversed the decision of OBES on January 18, 2000, and explained that appellant had served a disciplinary suspension from his duties for insubordination. Hence, he was ineligible for unemployment benefits. Appellant requested a review of that decision before appellee, but his request was disallowed on March 23, 2000. On April 18, 2000, appellant filed an appeal, pursuant to R.C. 4141.28, with the court of common pleas. The court of common pleas affirmed the decision to deny benefits on February 7, 2001. Appellant timely filed the instant appeal and now asserts the following as error:
As appellant's assignments of error are interrelated, they will be addressed in a consolidated manner. In his first assignment of error, appellant contends that appellee and the court of common pleas erred in affirming the denial of his unemployment compensation benefits. In the second assignment of error appellant posits that the court of common pleas erred in affirming the denial of his unemployment compensation benefits on the basis of a work rule violation. Lastly, in his third assignment of error, appellant alleges that appellee admitted irrelevant evidence regarding his other suspension in 1999, which the court of common pleas did not find to be in error.
The General Assembly has set forth a statutory standard for review of the decisions of the Unemployment Board of Review Commission ("Board of Review"). R.C. 4141.28(N)(1) provides in pertinent part:
"If the court finds that the decision was unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence, it shall reverse and vacate such decision or it may modify such decision and enter final judgment in accordance with such modification; otherwise such court shall affirm such decision."
This court has stated that pursuant to R.C. 4141.28, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial