Smallwood v. Florida Dept. of Commerce
| Decision Date | 27 September 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-192,77-192 |
| Citation | 350 So.2d 121 |
| Parties | Charles N. SMALLWOOD, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Susan A. England, of People's Legal Action, Inc., Winter Garden, for petitioner.
Kenneth H. Hart, Jr., Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, and James R. Parks, Miami, for respondent-Florida Dept. of Commerce Div. of Employment Security.
We have for review by petition for writ of certiorari an order of the Industrial Relations Commission affirming the decision of an appeals referee denying unemployment compensation benefits to petitioner.
Briefly, the evidence reflected that petitioner was a long distance truck driver for his employer for some ten years from 1966 until 1976. In 1970 petitioner had a cataract operation on one eye and in 1971 a like operation on the other eye. Thereafter petitioner was utilized on local deliveries and warehouse work with the understanding that if an emergency developed he would drive the longer trips.
Just prior to his discharge petitioner was directed to drive an overnight trip and he refused. He testified that he refused because his peripheral vision had deteriorated since the cataract operation and he felt he was not capable of the kind of driving required to operate large trucks on the open highway. This refusal brought about his discharge.
The appeals referee found that petitioner was discharged for misconduct connected with his work within the meaning of Section 443.06(1), Florida Statutes (1975).
In the final analysis the issue before the appeals referee was whether petitioner was justified in refusing to follow his employer's instructions to drive the overnight trip. If as petitioner testified, his vision was defective thus making operation of a large truck in highway traffic dangerous to himself and others, then it would certainly appear petitioner was justified in refusing to undertake the trip. On the other hand, if petitioner's sight was not defective then his refusal would constitute misconduct under the statute and the order denying benefits was proper.
As stated previously, petitioner testified his peripheral vision was poor, and he felt incapable of driving large trucks on the highway for extended periods. No evidence to the contrary was adduced. The closest respondent came to contradicting petitioner's testimony was a reference to petitioner having passed a vehicle lessor's periodic eye test for drivers in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peery v. Rutledge
...Amador v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, 35 Cal. 3d 671, 200 Cal.Rptr. 298, 677 P.2d 224 (1984); Smallwood v. Florida Department of Commerce, 350 So.2d 121 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1977) (refusal to drive a truck); Webster v. Potlatch Forests, Inc., 68 Idaho 1, 187 P.2d 527 (1947); Ferguson ......
-
Pascarelli v. Unemployment Appeals Com'n
...Com'n, 495 So.2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (employees acted unreasonably in refusing to clean coffee area); Smallwood v. Florida Dep't of Commerce, 350 So.2d 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (cause remanded for determination whether trucker who refused to drive at night impaired It cannot be held unrea......
-
Baeza v. Pan American/National Airlines, Inc., s. 80-280
...requirements. The Unemployment Compensation Law should be liberally construed in favor of claimants. Smallwood v. Florida Department of Commerce, 350 So.2d 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Fredericks v. Florida Department of Commerce, 323 So.2d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Disqualifying provisions are t......
-
Franz v. Employment Sec. Dept.
...an employee's disobedience can be excused if there is good cause, e.g., overriding health or safety factors, Smallwood v. Florida Dept. of Commerce, 350 So.2d 121 (Fla.App.1977). Failure to comply with a rule is not misconduct if the employee had no intent to disobey the rule or order. See ......