Simmons v. Department of Employment

Decision Date06 July 1978
Docket NumberNo. 12561,12561
Citation99 Idaho 290,581 P.2d 336
PartiesRobert L. SIMMONS, Claimant-Respondent, v. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

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-appellantDepartment of Employment appeals from an order of the Industrial Commission granting unemployment compensation benefits to claimant-respondentRobert 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex
17 cases
  • Guillard v. Department of Employment
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 28 Noviembre 1979
    ...of the Industrial Commission when supported by substantial and competent evidence. Idaho Const. art. 5, § 9; Simmons v. Department of Employment, 99 Idaho 290, 581 P.2d 336 (1978); Booth v. City of Burley,99 Idaho 229, 580 P.2d 75 The decision of the Industrial Commission is hereby affirmed......
  • Spruell v. Allied Meadows Corp.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 15 Febrero 1990
    ...Plywood, 101 Idaho 415, 614 P.2d 955 (1980); Harris v. Green Tree, Inc., 100 Idaho 227, 596 P.2d 99 (1979); Simmons v. Dept. of Employment, 99 Idaho 290, 581 P.2d 336 (1978); Booth v. City of Burley, 99 Idaho 229, 580 P.2d 75 (1978); Hutchinson v. J.R. Simplot Co., 98 Idaho 346, 563 P.2d 40......
  • Jensen v. Siemsen
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 14 Junio 1990
    ...Plywood, 101 Idaho 415, 614 P.2d 955 (1980); Harris v. Green Tree, Inc., 100 Idaho 227, 596 P.2d 99 (1979); Simmons v. Department of Employment, 99 Idaho 290, 581 P.2d 336 (1978); Booth v. City of Burley, 99 Idaho 229, 580 P.2d 75 (1978); Hutchinson v. J.R. Simplot Co., 98 Idaho 346, 563 P.......
  • Bullock v. CIT Co. Federal Credit Union
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 29 Mayo 1984
    ...Article V, Section 9; Gaehring v. Department of Employment, 100 Idaho 118, 119, 594 P.2d 628 (1979); Simmons v. Department of Employment, 99 Idaho 290, 581 P.2d 336 (1978); Booth v. City of Burley, 99 Idaho 229, 580 P.2d 75 (1978). See also Dissent of Bakes, C.J., in Davenport v. State, Dep......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT