STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, PETITIONER,
v.
CHARLES E. DIETZ, RESPONDENT
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.
Florida's Department of Commerce challenged an Industrial Relations Commission decision that reversed an appeals referee's determination that Charles Dietz voluntarily abandoned his job without good cause. The District Court of Appeal held that substantial competent evidence supported the referee's finding that Dietz's failure to return to work after being given opportunity to do so constituted voluntary abandonment, rendering him ineligible for unemployment benefits.
The court held that substantial competent evidence supported the appeals referee's conclusion that Dietz's failure to report back to work constituted abandonment of his job, and that under Florida law, any claimant who voluntarily leaves employment without good cause attributable to the employer is ineligible for unemployment benefits.
[1] A claimant who voluntarily leaves employment without good cause attributable to the employer is ineligible for unemployment benefits.
[2] Failure to report back to work after being given notice and an opportunity to do so may be considered abandonment of employment.
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“any claimant who voluntarily leaves his employment without good cause attributable to his employer is rendered ineligible for benefits otherwise provided under the unemployment compensation laws of this state”
Statement of the controlling legal standard under Florida Statutes Section 443.06(1)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDietz worked as a field auditor for the Division of Employment Security from February 1973 until May 1975, when he was reassigned to appeals work at l…
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 Petition For Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
An unemployment compensation appeals referee held that respondent/claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause, and was therefore not entitled to receive unemployment benefits Upon review> the Industrial Relations Commission reversed-The state now Petltlons for certiorari.1 We grant the writ.
On March 12,1976, the respondent/claimant Charles Dietz applied to petitioner for unemployment compensation benefits. His application was denied by a claims examiner on the ground that he had been terminated due to misconduct. He appealed this decision, and on May 22, 1976, the appeals referee entered the following decision:
The determination of the Claims Examiner, disqualifying the claimant for benefits for being discharged by the employer for misconduct connected with his work, is hereby modified so as to hold that the claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause attributable to the employer, and that the period of disqualification shall be for the week ending February 21, 1976, plus the five immediately following weeks, and until he has become reemployed and has earned at least $820.00.
The evidence before the appeals referee showed that Mr. Dietz had worked as a field auditor for the Division of Employment Security from February 1973 until May 1975, at which time he was assigned to appeals work; that he worked for approximately nine months in that position receiving somewhat lower wages than the regularly assigned referees. Mr. Dietz left the appeals office on February 16,1976, and did not return, although he was furnished written notice that if he did not report back by March 8 (later extended to March 9) he would be deemed to have abandoned his .job. In his testimony before the referee, Mr. Dietz offered no explanation for his departure from work or for his failure to return as ordered. Other witnesses indicated Mr. Dietz was dissatisfied because he was receiving lesser wages than regular referees. The evidence, however, revealed that he had been advised by the' district supervisor that if he returned to work he would, upon request, be reassigned to the field auditing service.
In sum, the evidence supports the appeals referee’s conclusion that from February 17 through March 9, 1976, the supervisor gave Mr. Dietz an opportunity to return to work and express his desire to. either remain in appeals work or be reassigned as an auditor; however, Mr. Dietz neither returned nor expressed his reasons for not doing so.
On petition for certiorari to review administrative actions in granting or denying unemployment benefits it becomes incumbent upon this court to determine whether there was substantial competent evidence to support the findings of the appeals referee. Newkirk v. Florida Industrial Commission, 142 So. 2d 750 (Fla.2d DCA 1962); Continental Baking Co. v. Vilchez, 219 So. 2d 733 (Fla.2d DCA 1969).
Here we have concluded there was competent substantial evidence from which the appeals referee could have properly concluded that Mr. Dietz’ failure to report back to work was tantamount to abandonment of his job. Under the. law any claimant who voluntarily leaves his employment without good cause attributable to his employer is rendered ineligible for benefits otherwise provided under the unemployment compensation laws of this state. Section 443.06(1), Florida Statutes (1975); Duran Ins. Co. v. Dept. of Commerce, 260 So. 2d 873 (Fla.2d DCA 1972). See also Quick v. North Central Fla. Community Mental Health Center, 316 So. 2d 301 (Fla.1st DCA 1975). The referee’s conclusion that the claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits was therefore correct.
Certiorari is granted and the decision of the Industrial Relations Commission is reversed and the decision of the appeals referee is reinstated.
BOARDMAN, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur. . Judicial review by petition for writ of certiorari from orders of the Industrial Relations Commission in unemployment compensation matters is provided for by Section 443.07(4)(e), Florida Statutes (1975).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Verner v. State, 474 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…utes (1983), only where the referee’s findings and conclusions are not based on substantial, competent evidence. C.F. Chemicals, Inc. v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 400 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Department of Commerce v. Dietz, 349 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). We find that the referee’s determination is supported by substantial, competent evidence. Therefore, it was improper for the UAC to reweigh the evidence and substitute its findings for those of the referee. Flagler County Sheriff…
-
Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 370 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…301 (Fla.1st DCA 1975). The appeals referee is the factfinder in respect to unemployment compensation benefits, and where there is substantial, competent evidence to support his findings his decision must be upheld. Department of Commerce v. Dietz, 349 So. 2d 1226 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). Accordingly, the Board of Review erred in reversing the finding of the appeals referee.2 The county further argues that both the appeals referee and the Board of Review erred in holding that Britt was not discharged for misconduc…
-
Fort Myers Pump & Supply, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't OF Labor & Emp. Sec., 373 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…ida Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security, supra; Hammett v. Florida Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security, 352 So. 2d 948 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); State Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security v. Dietz, 349 So. 2d 1226 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). The referee specifically found that Mrs. Humphrey was discharged for spending an excessive amount of her time on the job in making personal telephone calls and refusing to make requested changes in her work habits. There is subst…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cont'l Baking Co. v. Vilchez, 219 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Newkirk v. Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 142 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- Bell v. State, 316 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Quick v. N. Cent. Fla. Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., 316 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Duran Ins. Co. v. Fla. Dep't OF Commerce, 260 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)