Blake v. Unemp. Rev. Comm. Admr.
2017 Ohio 166
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Cynthia Blake worked full-time at PNC (lost job) and part-time as a mailer extra for Akron Beacon Journal since 1995; she disclosed the part-time job when applying for unemployment benefits.
- ODJFS initially granted benefits ($418 weekly) but Beacon reported Blake was refusing/suppressing scheduling and not calling in to request shifts.
- Beacon’s available mailer-extra shifts (7.5 hours; $13.12/hr) existed during the disputed weeks; Blake was the most senior mailer extra and could have been scheduled.
- Blake told the union steward in April 2014 not to schedule her while she sought full‑time work and failed to call in weekly to report availability; on one occasion she accepted a July 25 shift then canceled for a job interview.
- UCRC found Blake ineligible under R.C. 4141.29(A)(5) for multiple weeks (overpayment and denial), concluding she failed to inquire about or accept suitable temporary assignments; common pleas court and this court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the common pleas court abused discretion by denying Blake's motion to supplement the record with an audio of a different UCRC hearing | Blake: audio would show Beacon submitted unverified documents and HR misconduct | ODJFS/UCRC: trial court review is limited to the certified record; supplementing was not permitted and motion was untimely | Denial affirmed; court properly refused to supplement because review is limited to the UCRC certified record and local rule barred supplementation |
| Whether mailer-extra work at Beacon was suitable employment | Blake: part-time/temporary work was not suitable compared to prior full-time job and below previous wages; she needed reasonable time to find equivalent full-time work | Beacon/ODJFS: work was the same job she had performed for 20 years, she admitted it was suitable, and she failed to inquire/accept available assignments | Suitable work; UCRC decision supported—Blake admitted suitability and had duty to inquire under R.C. 4141.29(A)(5) |
| Whether Blake violated R.C. 4141.29(A)(5) by failing to inquire about or accept available temporary assignments | Blake: union contract and past practice allowed her to avoid scheduling; she was seeking full‑time work and feared calling off would risk termination | Beacon/ODJFS: Blake told union steward not to be scheduled and stopped calling in; shifts were available and she did not meet the statutory duty to inquire | Violation found; by instructing the steward not to schedule and not calling in, Blake failed the statutory duty and was ineligible for benefits for the weeks at issue |
| Whether UCRC decisions were against the manifest weight of the evidence, unlawful, or unreasonable | Blake: hearing officers relied on hearsay and lacked affidavits/schedules; she exercised due diligence seeking full-time work | UCRC/ODJFS: hearings are informal; officers may consider hearsay/schedules; record shows available shifts and Blake’s admissions | Affirmed; substantial evidence in certified record supports the UCRC findings and credibility/weight determinations are for the UCRC |
Key Cases Cited
- Tzangas, Plaka, & Mannos v. Admr., Ohio Bur. of Emp. Servs., 73 Ohio St.3d 694 (1995) (standard of review for unemployment decisions and deference to commission credibility findings)
- Irvine v. State of Ohio, Unemp. Comp. Bd. of Rev., 19 Ohio St.3d 15 (1985) (appellate review limited to statutory standard; factual determinations for review board)
- Simon v. Lake Geauga Printing Co., 69 Ohio St.2d 41 (1982) (relaxed evidentiary rules at unemployment hearings; hearsay may be considered)
- Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (1988) (presumption in favor of administrative findings of fact)
- Pennington v. Dudley, 10 Ohio St.2d 90 (1967) (suitability of work is a factual question for the trier of facts)
- Salzl v. Gibson Greeting Cards, Inc., 61 Ohio St.2d 35 (1980) (purpose of Unemployment Compensation Act and limits on benefits for those who refuse suitable work)
- Leach v. Republic Steel Corp., 176 Ohio St. 221 (1964) (statement on the Act’s purpose to assist the involuntarily unemployed)
- Rini v. Unemp. Comp. Bd. of Review, 9 Ohio App.3d 214 (1983) (partial unemployment and eligibility context)