In the recent unemployment appeal hearing at the Oakland office of the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, our office handled and prevailed in a relatively challenging situation. The claimant was driver for a uniform supply company. He was terminated for violating the employer's policy which prohibited talking on the cellphone while driving (whether with a headset or without). The claimant answered his employer's call while driving, receiving a citation from the policy and was terminated shortly after.
Initially, the claimant was denied benefits as he was found to have been terminated for "misconduct" within Unempl. Insurance Code sec. 1256. During the appeal hearing, we made a few arguments that convinced the judge that the above policy violation fell short of "misconduct" as defined by the code. The important precedent case for these kinds of situations is Delgado v CUIAB (1974). In that case, the claimant, a grocery checker, was fired for knowing violating the employer's rule when she postponed recording a certain purchase. The claimant believed that her departures from the rule were acceptable to her immediate supervisor and the store manager, who knew of them and participated in them. The claimant was never warned to stop this practice. The Court of Appeal held that the claimant reasonably believed that her actions were approved or condoned by her supervisor, and thus there was no "misconduct".
The Delgado case can be used effectively to win at the unemployment appeals hearing in those common cases where the violation that lead to termination, even if was known to be against the company policy, was not significant and where the employee, when committing a violation, was arguably acting with an intent to benefit the employer.
Initially, the claimant was denied benefits as he was found to have been terminated for "misconduct" within Unempl. Insurance Code sec. 1256. During the appeal hearing, we made a few arguments that convinced the judge that the above policy violation fell short of "misconduct" as defined by the code. The important precedent case for these kinds of situations is Delgado v CUIAB (1974). In that case, the claimant, a grocery checker, was fired for knowing violating the employer's rule when she postponed recording a certain purchase. The claimant believed that her departures from the rule were acceptable to her immediate supervisor and the store manager, who knew of them and participated in them. The claimant was never warned to stop this practice. The Court of Appeal held that the claimant reasonably believed that her actions were approved or condoned by her supervisor, and thus there was no "misconduct".
The Delgado case can be used effectively to win at the unemployment appeals hearing in those common cases where the violation that lead to termination, even if was known to be against the company policy, was not significant and where the employee, when committing a violation, was arguably acting with an intent to benefit the employer.
RSS Feed
