Simmons v. Department of Employment

• Decision Date: 06 July 1978
• Docket Number: No. 12561,12561
• Citation: 99 Idaho 290,581 P.2d 336
• Parties: Robert L. SIMMONS, Claimant-Respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 336

581 P.2d 336

99 Idaho 290

Robert L. SIMMONS, Claimant-Respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12561.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

July 6, 1978.

R. LaVar Marsh, Deputy Atty. Gen., Wayne L. Kidwell, Atty. Gen., Roger B. Madsen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boise, for defendant-appellant.

Robert L. Simmons, pro se.

McFADDEN, Justice.

Defendant-appellant Department of Employment appeals from an order of the Industrial Commission granting unemployment compensation benefits to claimant-respondent Robert L. Simmons. We affirm.

Respondent moved from Orofino, Idaho, to accept seasonal employment as a granulator at the Amalgamated Sugar Company plant in Nampa, Idaho, on October 8, 1975. Late in the evening of December 14, 1975, respondent's pregnant wife developed bronchitis and respondent drove her to their family obstetrician in Clarkston, Washington. Respondent remained with his wife for three days during her illness before returning to work in Nampa on December 17, 1975. Respondent was then informed that he had been discharged for not being at work when scheduled.

The present controversy began when respondent sought to collect unemployment benefits after being discharged from his employment. The Department of Employment claims examiner initially found that respondent was eligible for unemployment benefits because he had notified the employer of his intended absence, had explained the circumstances of the emergency and had attempted to return to work. However, upon redetermination of that decision pursuant to I.C. § 72-1368(d), the claims examiner found that respondent had been absent from employment "without properly notifying the employer" and concluded that such action constituted misconduct. Unemployment benefits were thus denied and prior benefits ordered refunded to the Department of Employment.

Pursuant to I.C. § 72-1368(f), respondent appealed the denial of unemployment benefits to the Department of Employment appeals examiner. The appeals examiner found that respondent had been absent from work during the time when he was scheduled to be at work and concluded that this constituted misconduct.

Respondent appealed the determination to the Industrial Commission pursuant to I.C. § 72-1368(g). Without hearing additional witnesses, the Industrial Commission found that respondent had notified his employer of the absences and was, therefore, eligible for unemployment benefits. This appeal is from the order of the Industrial Commission reversing the determination of the appeals examiner and awarding respondent unemployment benefits.

A benefit claimant under the Idaho Employment Security Law is not eligible for unemployment benefits if he is discharged for misconduct in connection with his employment. I.C. § 72-1366(e). Violation of an employer's rule is not, per se, misconduct; rather, a deliberate and intentional violation of the spirit of the rule is required. Wroble v. Bonners Ferry Ranger Station, 97 Idaho 900, 556 P.2d 859 (1976). Whether or not witnesses appear before the Industrial Commission, this court's appellate review is restricted to reviewing questions of law, Booth v. City of Burley, Idaho, 580 P.2d 75 (1978), and findings of fact by the Industrial Commission will not be disturbed when supported by substantial and competent evidence. Hutchinson v. J. R. Simplot Co., 98 Idaho 346, 563 P.2d 404 (1977).

The following facts in the record are uncontroverted: the employer required employees to receive permission from the supervisor or...