HENRY TANAV, APPELLANT,
v.
DHL AND THE FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1994-07-12
No. 94-1101
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and GERSTEN, JJ.
639 So. 2d 1053 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1994) Caution
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The appeals referee disqualified the appellant from unemployment compensation benefits on the ground that, while he had twice given notice to a supervisor of his impending week-long absence from work, he had not done so to the proper superior as provided by the employer’s work rules. The Unemployment Appeals Commission affirmed. As a matter of law, however, these actions do not amount to “misconduct” under section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1993).

Doyle v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 635 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); King v. Walgreen Co., 635 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Castillo v. Sally Beauty Co., 637 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Co., 627 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Nelson v. Burdines, Inc., 611 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Benitez v. Girlfriday, Inc., 609 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Adams v. Burdines, Inc., 600 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Woskoff v. Desta Enters., 187 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Spaulding v. Florida Indus. Comm’n, 154 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).

Accordingly, the order is reversed with directions to afford the appellant the benefits claimed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Principe O. Zorrilla v. L. Luria & SON, Inc., 645 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
    …employee’s deliberate violation of the supervisor’s repeated warnings clearly distinguishes his ease from many recent others in which we have held that a first-time, usually trivial violation of a company policy was not misconduct. See Tanav v. DHL, 639 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), and cases cited. Affirmed.…
  • Pion v. Miami Paper & Plastic, Inc., 698 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
    …nt to “misconduct” which disqualified him from unemployment compensation benefits. Phanco v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 639 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); see Cooks v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 670 So. 2d 178 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Tanav v. DHL, 639 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Benitez v. Girlfriday, Inc., 609 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Armstrong v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 427 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). Hence, the decision below is reversed with directions to afford Pion the benefits claim…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw