01-0476 RODRIGUEZ V. SVINGA

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Florida » Florida Third District Court » 2001 » 01-0476 RODRIGUEZ V. SVINGA

State: Florida

Court: Florida Third District Court

Docket No: 01-0476 RODRIGUEZ V. SVINGA

Case Date: 12/19/2001

Preview:NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT JULY TERM, 2001

MARIO RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, vs. SVINGA BROTHERS CORPORATION and FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, Appellees.

** ** ** ** ** ** CASE NO. 3D01-476 LOWER TRIBUNAL NO. 00-6243

Opinion filed December 19, 2001. An Appeal from the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission. Legal Services of Greater Miami and Lizel Gonzalez, for appellant. John D. Maher (Tallahassee), for appellee Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission. Isicoff, Ragatz & Koenigsberg and Eric D. Isicoff and Teresa Ragatz, for appellee Svinga Brothers Corporation.

Before GERSTEN, GODERICH and SORONDO, JJ. GODERICH, Judge. The claimant, Mario Rodriguez, appeals from the order of the

Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming the appeals referee's denial of unemployment compensation benefits. We reverse.

The claimant was discharged from his position as a truck driver with Svinga Brothers Corporation, a scrap metal recycling company. Thereafter, the claimant applied for unemployment The claimant

compensation benefits, but benefits were denied. appealed the denial.

Following a hearing where the claimant and

the employer's president testified, the appeals referee found that the claimant's job duties included delivering empty scrap metal containers to the employer's customers and picking up full scrap metal containers. The incident resulting in the claimant's

discharge began when the claimant's supervisor asked the claimant to deliver twelve empty containers to a customer and to pick up twelve full containers from that same customer. The defendant

explained to his supervisor that carrying more than eight full containers on a small flat-bed truck was dangerous and could lead to a traffic accident. spoke to the claimant. Thereafter, the president of the company The claimant explained to the president

that he was willing to return with eight full scrap metal containers but that he would not return with twelve full containers because he felt that doing so was dangerous. terminated the claimant's employment immediately. The appeals referee concluded that the claimant was The employer

disqualified from receiving benefits because the claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with work. 2 The Unemployment

Appeals Commission affirmed the appeals referee's decision. claimant's appeal followed.

The

If the claimant's refusal to perform the assigned task was unreasonable, his conduct constitutes misconduct connected with work, and therefore, the claimant would be disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits. See Jorge v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 765 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Pascarelli v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 664 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). In determining whether the claimant's actions

constituted misconduct connected with work pursuant to section 443.101, Florida Statutes (2001), the statute should be liberally construed in favor of the claimant. See Cullen v. Neighborly

Senior Servs., Inc., 775 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Pascarelli, 664 So. 2d at 1091. Moreover, conduct that warrants termination of employment does not necessarily warrant forfeiture of unemployment compensation benefits. See Benitez v. Girlfriday, Inc., 609 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). In the instant case, the claimant, who has years of experience transporting scrap metal containers, believed that carrying more than eight full containers on a small flat-bed truck would be dangerous. Under the circumstances, the claimant's refusal to

perform the assigned task was not unreasonable, and therefore, did not constitute misconduct connected with work. At worst, the

claimant's refusal to perform the assigned task was an isolated exercise of poor judgment, not misconduct. See Bulkan v. Florida 3

Unemployment

Appeals

Comm'n,

648

So.

2d

846

(Fla.

4th

DCA

1995)(holding that poor judgment does not constitute misconduct under section 443.101, Florida Statute); McKinney v. United States Sugar Corp., 492 So. 2d 478, 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)(holding that isolated good faith errors in judgment do not constitute

misconduct). Therefore, we reverse the order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission affirming the appeals referee's denial of unemployment compensation benefits and order unemployment benefits to be paid. Reversed.

4

Download 01-0476 RODRIGUEZ V. SVINGA.pdf