Weston v. Gritman Memorial Hospital, No. 12643

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
• Writing for the Court: HARGRAVES; SHEPARD, C. J., BAKES and BISTLINE, JJ., and ROWETT
• Citation: 99 Idaho 717,587 P.2d 1252
• Docket Number: No. 12643
• Decision Date: 20 December 1978
• Parties: Nancy E. WESTON, Claimant-Appellant, v. GRITMAN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Employer, and Department of Employment, Defendants-Respondents.

Page 1252

587 P.2d 1252 99 Idaho 717 Nancy E. WESTON, Claimant-Appellant,
v.
GRITMAN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Employer,
and Department of Employment, Defendants-Respondents. No. 12643. Supreme Court of Idaho. Dec. 20, 1978.

[99 Idaho 718]

Page 1253

Frederick G. Loats, Coeur d'Alene, for claimant-appellant.

Cope R. Gale, Moscow, for respondent-employer.

R. LaVar Marsh, Deputy Atty. Gen., Roger B. Madsen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boise, for respondent Dept. of Employment.

HARGRAVES, Justice Pro Tem.

Claimant was hired in January of 1974 by Gritman Memorial Hospital in Moscow, Idaho for employment as a surgical nurse with duties in the operating room. Claimant had had no prior experience as a surgical nurse and had to be trained for this position by the hospital. Her normal duty hours were from 7:00 a. m. until 3:30 p. m., though claimant and other nurses serving in surgery were permitted to leave after the last surgery was completed, which would frequently be at about noon; however, in any case they were paid for 81/2 hours each workday.

The surgical department of Gritman Memorial Hospital had a "policy manual" which set forth generally the operating room procedures and the duties of the respective personnel. Any revisions in the manual were discussed with the nurses prior to the implementation and in all cases the manual was available to all nurses, including the claimant.

It was a requirement of employer that operating room personnel be in the room promptly at 7:00 a. m., ready to commence pre-surgery duties. This rule was contained in the "policy manual." During the two years claimant was employed by Gritman she was late for work on many occasions. She had been admonished about this problem by her supervisor and counseled that such conduct would not be further tolerated. Finally, on January 5, 1976, claimant was again late for work and at that time was informed by the supervisor that she was terminated from the surgery department effective January 20, 1976. The reasons given for such termination were continued tardiness, being "flippant" with doctors and a general lack of interest (in her work).

After receiving the termination notice of January 5, 1976, but before the effective date of such termination, claimant was offered a job on the "second floor" of Gritman, which included departments of obstetrics, ophthalmology and gynecology, to commence on January 20, 1976. Claimant declined the offer.

Sometime following the 20th day of January, 1976, claimant filed for unemployment benefits under the Employment Security Law, but her claim was denied, for the reason that she had voluntarily left her job without good cause. A request for a redetermination was made and the Department of Employment submitted the matter to an appeals examiner who set a hearing date of April 20, 1976, at which time claimant failed to appear, apparently because of failure to receive notice. Subsequently, the Industrial Commission remanded the matter to the Department of Employment and additional hearings were conducted in Spokane, Washington on July 8, 1976 and in Moscow, Idaho on October 1, 1976. These [99 Idaho 719]

Page 1254

hearings resulted in a decision of an appeals examiner generally denying claimant's right to unemployment benefits. Upon request of claimant, the Industrial Commission ordered a "hearing on review" for the 18th day of April, 1977, in Moscow, Idaho. Following this review before a referee, an order was issued affirming the decision of the appeals examiner, which denied benefits, and said order, together with findings of fact and...