HARDEE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PETITIONERS,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AND RAYMOND JOHNSON, JR., RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reviewed a certiorari petition challenging an Industrial Relations Commission order awarding unemployment compensation to respondent Johnson. The court held that due process requires employers receive proper notice of unemployment compensation hearings, and remanded because the record did not establish whether the county commissioners received such notice.
Due process requires that employers be afforded proper notice of unemployment compensation proceedings involving questions about whether services were performed in employment, or there must be a basis in the record showing an informed and intelligent waiver of such notice. The case was remanded to determine whether petitioners received proper notice or waived it.
[1] Due process requires either proper notice of the issues to be heard or a basis in the record to show an informed and intelligent waiver of the same.
[2] Due process requires that employers be accorded notice of unemployment compensation proceedings to the same degree as claimants, absent waiver.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Unless the appeal is withdrawn with his permission or is removed to the board of review, the appeals referee, after affording the parties a reasonable opportunity for a fair hearing, shall make findings and conclusions and on the basis thereof affirm, modify, or reverse such determination; provided, however, that whenever an appeal involves a question as to whether services were performed by a claimant in employment or for an employer, the referee shall give special notice of such issue and of the pendency of the appeal to the employing unit and to the commission, both of whom shall thenceforth be parties to the proceeding and be afforded reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence bearing on such question.”
Statutory requirement mandating special notice to employers in unemployment compensation proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Johnson claimed entitlement to unemployment compensation benefits. The appeals referee granted Johnson's claim. The Industrial Relations Co…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice Of Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Judge.
We review by certiorari an order of the Industrial Relations Commission affirming the decision of the appeals referee granting respondent Johnson unemployment compensation.
Here the petitioners, county commission, contend they were afforded no notice of the proceedings before the appeals referee, with the result being that the petitioners were denied the presence of a representative to present facts and evidence bearing on respondent Johnson’s claimed entitlement to unemployment compensation benefits. Section 443.07(4)(b)(2), F.S. 1966, provides as follows:
“Unless the appeal is withdrawn with his permission or is removed to the board of review, the appeals referee, after affording the parties a reasonable opportunity for a fair hearing, shall make findings and conclusions and on the basis thereof affirm, modify, or reverse such determination; provided, however, that whenever an appeal involves a question as to whether services were performed by a claimant in employment or for an employer, the referee shall give special notice of such issue and of the pendency of the appeal to the employing unit and to the commission, both of whom shall thenceforth be parties to the proceeding and be afforded reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence bearing on such question.” (emphasis supplied).
We think this case is controlled by the language in Lewis v. Hot Shoppes, Fla. App. 4th 1968, 211 So. 2d 20, where the court said at page 21:
“Due process of law requires either proper notice of the issues to be heard or a basis in the record to show an informed and intelligent waiver of the same.”
Although Lewis, supra, involved the denial of notice to a claimant for unemployment benefits, we think due process requires that notice be accorded employers in equal degree, absent waiver. The question of whether petitioner ever received notice of the hearing before the appeals referee remains a question of fact.
Petition for certiorari is granted and this case is remanded to the Industrial Relations Commission for further proceedings to determine whether or not petitioners were afforded proper notice or waived the same.
McNULTY, C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Levitt v. Myles H. Levitt, 454 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…was to be considered at the hearing. Appellant was not prepared, nor was she required to be prepared, to argue against a reduction in child support. See Hardee, County Commissioners v. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security, 343 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) (due process requires that employers be afforded notice of issues to be heard in unemployment compensation proceedings in order to present facts and evidence bearing on the claim [*1072] ant’s entitlement to benefits); Munroe Memo…
-
Browder v. State, 375 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…ct of the agency action is to impose an obligation on the appellant as a result of taking the security interest without any opportunity to be heard. See: Hardee County Commissioners v. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security, 343 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Lewis v. Hot Shoppes, 211 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968). To require a subsequent entity, which continues a business, to be responsible for the prior employer’s unemployment compensation rating may be justified in an arms’ length…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 211 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)