Tynes v. Uniroyal Tire Co.
| Decision Date | 24 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 60090,No. 1,60090,1 |
| Citation | 1984 OK CIV APP 20,679 P.2d 1310 |
| Parties | 1984 OK CIV APP 20 Debby TYNES, Appellant, v. UNIROYAL TIRE COMPANY, and Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, Appellees |
| Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma |
Appeal from the District Court of Carter County; Woodrow George, judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Jimmy Veith, Ardmore, for appellant.
Wallace, Bickford, Pasley & Farabough by Harry L. Bickford, Ardmore, for appellee Uniroyal Tire Company.
Jim R. Sales, Oklahoma City, for appellee Oklahoma Employment Security Commission.
Debby Tynes appeals Oklahoma Employment Security Commission's denial of unemployment benefits. Denial of benefits was based upon Board of Review's finding that Tynes was discharged for misconduct. Tynes was dismissed for accumulating tardies/early leaves in excess of those allowed by Uniroyal.
The Employment Security Act of 1980, 40 O.S.1981 § 2-406, provides "an individual shall be disqualified for benefits if he has been discharged for misconduct connected with his last work, if so found by the Commission." The Act does not define "misconduct connected with his last work," nor have we found a judicial definition in Oklahoma. Consequently, we must determine the Legislature's intended meaning.
The declaration of public policy by the Legislature contained in § 1-103 illuminates the objective of the Act.
As a guide to the interpretation and application of this act, the public policy of this state is declared to be as follows: Economic insecurity due to unemployment is a serious menace to the health, morals, and welfare of the people of this state.... The achievement of social security requires protection against this greatest hazard of our economic life. This objective can be furthered by ... the systematic accumulation of funds during periods of employment, thus maintaining purchasing power and limiting the serious social consequences of unemployment.... [U]nemployment reserves [are] to be used for the benefit of persons unemployed through no fault of their own.
Title 40, section 2-406 of the Oklahoma Statutes operates as a forfeiture of the benefits the Act seeks to afford unemployed workers. In light of the Legislature's general objective, we find § 2-406 should be narrowly construed to allow maximum fulfillment of the Act's basic purpose. 76 Am.Jur.2d Unemployment Compensation § 52 (1975).
We establish the following as the definition of "misconduct" as used in the Oklahoma Employment Security Act:
conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such a degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to his employer. On the other hand, mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed "misconduct" within the meaning of the statute.
Arizona Dept. of Economic Security v. Magma Copper Co., 125 Ariz. 389, 609 P.2d 1089 (Ariz.App.1980) (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941)).
Tynes contends that exceeding Uniroyal's allowable tardies/early leaves does not automatically subject her to a forfeiture of unemployment benefits. We agree, but hasten to add that nothing in this opinion should be construed as preventing employers from making whatever termination rules are necessary for the proper functioning of their business. What employers may not do is usurp the Commission's authority to determine whether an employee has been guilty of misconduct. The burden is upon the claimant to show she qualifies for unemployment compensation, Blankenship v. Board of Review, Okl. Emp. Sec. Com'n, 486 P.2d 718 (Okl.1971), and upon the employer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vester v. Board of Review of Oklahoma Employment Sec. Com'n
...not participating. KAUGER, J., disqualified. 1 355 P.2d 404, 406 (Okla.1960).2 40 O.S.1981 §§ 1-101 through 9-104.3 Tynes v. Uniroyal Tire Co., 679 P.2d 1310 (Okla.App.1984).4 237 Wis. 249, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941).5 See Employment Security Commission v. Myers, 17 Ariz.App. 87, 495 P.2d 857......
-
John D. Giovanoni Ii v. Review Bd. Of The Ind. Dep't Of Workforce Dev.
...721, 724 (Minn.Ct.App.1991); Vester v. Bd. of Rev. of Okla. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 697 P.2d 533, 538 (Okla.1985); Tynes v. Uniroyal Tire Co., 679 P.2d 1310, 1313 (Okla.Ct.App.1984).5 In addition, three states have held that termination pursuant to a “no-fault” attendance policy still requires an......
-
Kelley v. Manor Grove, Inc.
...354 N.W.2d 299, 302 (1984); McCourtney v. Imprimis Technology, Inc., 465 N.W.2d 721, 724 (Minn.Ct.App.1991); Tynes v. Uniroyal Tire Co., 679 P.2d 1310, 1313 (Okla.Ct.App.1984); Vester v. Bd. of Review of Oklahoma Employment Sec. Comm'n, 697 P.2d 533, 538 (Okla.1985); Adept Corp. v. Commonwe......
-
Garman v. State Employment Sec. Dept.
...for the early tardies/early leaves (illness, taking care of a terminally ill mother and appearing in court). Tynes v. Uniroyal Tire Company, 679 P.2d 1310 (Okla.Ct.App.1984). Nevada decisions have stated that the employee's conduct which prompted the termination must have an element of wron......