DORIS ANN ARMSTRONG, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION AND ATLAS INDUSTRIAL SERVICE, INC., APPELLEES
DAUKSCH, Judge.
Upon review it is clear that appellee Atlas Industrial Service, Inc. was justified in terminating appellant from employment on account of her failure to follow company procedures and because she exhibited a disloyalty to her employer. However, it is also clear that her misconduct did not amount to the willful or wanton disregard of employee duty which would support a denial of unemployment benefits. See Erber v. Federal Express Corp., 409 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
The order of the commission is reversed and the commission is directed to award proper unemployment benefits to appellant.
REVERSED.
SHARP, J., concurs.
BROWNLEE, JACKSON 0., Associate Judge, dissents with opinion.
BROWNLEE, JACKSON 0., Associate Judge,
dissenting:
While it is true that failure to strictly follow company procedure is not sufficient to deny unemployment benefits, disloyalty is, or at least should be. The Appellant’s loyalties were obviously to fellow employees over which she had supervisory capacity and not to her employer. The disloyalty is evident by her failure to report a drunken employee, which failure could have caused her employer to lose a very lucrative contract. Secondly, this case is distinguishable from Erber v. Federal Express Corporation, 409 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). In the Erber case, the discharged employee was attempting to protect employer’s interest although misguided in his efforts. '
In the present case, there is no effort to protect employer’s interest. Quite to the contrary, Appellant turns over a key to a secured location to a person not authorized to possess the key, a non-discretionary act. It was a disloyal act, as was the failure to report a drunken employee. Disloyalty equates to willful or wanton disregard of employee duty.
The findings and holdings of the Unemployment Appeals Commission should be upheld.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hummer v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 573 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…is actions, this court concluded that he was not acting willfully, wantonly or with such a substantial disregard of his employer’s interests so as to warrant the denial of benefits under the statute. In Armstrong v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 427 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), this court held that Armstrong was entitled to benefits evén though her employer was justified in terminating her employment. Apparently Armstrong had failed to follow company procedures and was disloyal by failing to report a d…
-
Smith v. Eilon Krugman-Kadi & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 547 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…Market. In these cases, as in Varig and in the other cases resulting in benefits denials, the employee conduct reviewed was either more flagrant, willful, or repeated than it was in the instant case. In Armstrong v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 427 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) the district court directed that the claimant be paid unemployment benefits where the evidence showed that claimant was merely disloyal on two occasions which did not amount to the willful or wanton disregard of employee duty req…
-
Pascarelli v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 664 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…e employee’s conduct, although probably misguided, was not willful or wanton or with such substantial disregard of the employer’s interest as to warrant the denial of benefits under the statute. Similarly, in Armstrong v. Unemployment Appeals Com’n, 427 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), this court held that the conduct of a supervisory employee, who failed to report a drunken employee, and who gave a key to a secure area to an unauthorized person, did not amount to the wanton or willful disregard of employee du…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ira A. Erber v. Fed. Express Corp. & Dep't of Labor & Unemployment Sec., 409 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)