Spaulding v. Florida Indus. Commission, 63-94
Decision Date | 11 June 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 63-94,63-94 |
Citation | 154 So.2d 334 |
Parties | Bertha SPAULDING, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA INSUSTRIAL COMMISSION and Onny Amon, Inc., Respondents. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ainslee R. Ferdie, Miami, for petitioner.
Burnis T. Coleman and Lawrence Kanzer, Tallahassee, Meyer M. Brilliant, Miami, for respondents.
Before CARROLL, HORTON and BARKDULL, JJ.
By certiorari petitioner seeks review of a decision of the Florida Industrial Commission, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, affirming an Appeals Referee's decision which denied benefits upon a determination that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct connected with her work within the meaning of the applicable statute. 1
The facts as found by the Appeals Referee were stated in his report as follows:
As disclosed by the Referee's order, the disqualification on the above facts was decided on the following reasoning:
We are unable to agree with the conclusion reached by the Referee and the Board that the claimant's conduct as outlined above was 'tantamount to an intentional disregard of her employer's interest' and was 'misconduct connected with her work' within the meaning of the statutory provision involved. In our opinion the construction placed on the statute by the Referee and Board was too narrow. The facts fail by a substantial margin to establish misconduct for which disqualification for benefits is imposed. Bad faith on the part of the checker was not established. The absence of the exact payment item on the cash register tape permits an inference it was not registered, but does not amount to sufficient evidence to establish that the checker appropriated the payment. An inference equally if not more logical would be that someone picked it up during the time the checker was waiting on the other customer. The operative did not observe what happened to the payment after it was made.
In dealing with a case under a similar statute the Supreme Court of Wisconsin had this to say: 2
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vester v. Board of Review of Oklahoma Employment Sec. Com'n
...(1959); Langlois v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 24 Conn.Sup. 177, 188 A.2d 507 (1963); Spaulding v. Florida Industrial Commission, 154 So.2d 334 (Fla.Ct.App.1963); Mandes v. Employment Sec. Agency, 74 Idaho 23, 255 P.2d 1049 (1953); Mattson v. Dept. of Labor, 118 Ill.App.3......
-
State, Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Zimmer
...within the meaning of the Act. Here the petitioner's discharge was not based on misconduct as defined. See Spaulding v. Florida Industrial Commission, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 334. In the only case brought to our attention dealing with whether an employee's refusal to take a lie detector tes......
-
Gulf County School Bd. v. Washington
...498 So.2d 608 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Fredericks v. Florida Dep't of Commerce, 323 So.2d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Spaulding v. Florida Indus. Comm'n, 154 So.2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). There is no meaningful difference between an employee who unavoidably finds that he or she cannot meet a known ......
-
Starr v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office
...by claimant's "omissions" because a negligent act or omission would be insufficient to prove theft. See Spaulding v. Florida Industrial Comm'n, 154 So.2d 334, 338 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1963) (holding that an employee's inadvertence, ordinary poor judgment, or inattention does not constitute misc......