Vazquez v. GFC Builders Corp.

• Decision Date: 25 May 1983
• Docket Number: No. 82-1745,82-1745
• Citation: 431 So.2d 739
• Parties: Ramon VAZQUEZ, Appellant, v. GFC BUILDERS CORPORATION and Unemployment Appeals Commission, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 739

431 So.2d 739

Ramon VAZQUEZ, Appellant, v. GFC BUILDERS CORPORATION and Unemployment Appeals Commission, Appellees.

No. 82-1745.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Fourth District.

May 25, 1983.

Luis E. Rojas, Hialeah, for appellant.

John D. Maher, Tallahassee, for appellee/Commission.

WALDEN, Judge.

Ramon Vazquez was denied unemployment benefits by the Unemployment Appeals Commission. Vazquez appeals. We reverse.

Vazquez was discharged from his employment by his employer, GFC Builders, when he, Vazquez, refused to perform lawn maintenance services unless he was given additional compensation.

More facts are needed and these are uncontradicted. Vazquez was hired as a janitor/painter/maintenance man, in January, 1980, by GFC Builders. At the time of employment he was specifically told that he would not be required to perform lawn maintenance services as GFC Builders had employed an outside firm to perform that function and, indeed, the Appeals Referee so found: "Upon hire, the claimant was informed that he would not be required to perform lawn maintenance services as the employer had engaged an outside company for that purpose." Regardless, in February, 1982, Vazquez was told by his employer that thereafter he would be required to maintain the lawns at the employer's three condominiums. The outside lawn maintenance company had been discontinued due to economic conditions, according to GFC Builders. Vazquez agreed to do the additional work if he was given additional compensation, which request the employer denied. ¹

The Referee's Report, which was approved by the Unemployment Appeals Commission, denied benefits to Vazquez based on these Conclusions of Law:

"Misconduct connected with work" means conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests as is found in deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of its employee.

The evidence in the instant case clearly shows that the claimant was discharged on February 5, 1982, for refusing to perform a required service without increase in wages. Considering the fact that the claimant would be given a power lawnmower to perform the service, such cannot be considered as an unreasonable assignment. This is further evidenced by the claimant's willingness to accept the assignment if given an increase in wages. It is at the discretion of the employer to determine whether or not an increase in wages should be provided for employees. The claimant's refusal to accept the assignment without an increase in wages constitutes misconduct within the meaning of the law. Therefore, it must be concluded that the claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with his work.

The basic question or issue in this appeal is whether Vazquez was guilty of misconduct connected with work. We think not.

The standards of review are well known, being statutorily provided and often treated in appellate decisions, and so will not be repeated.

The legal misconduct which was attributed to Vazquez was recited in the Referee's Report and is found in Section 443.101(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1981).

(a) Conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests as is found in deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee; [emphasis added]

We hold that the fact that Vazquez was unequivocably told at the time of his employment that he would not be required to perform lawn maintenance work effectively eliminated any right on the part of the employer to expect or demand...