Western Kentucky Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Runyon
410 S.W.3d 113
| Ky. | 2013Background
- Trevor Runyon worked as a night loader for Western Kentucky Coca‑Cola Bottling Co. (WKCC) from June 2006 to March 26, 2009; his regular days off were Wednesday and Saturday but for several weeks he habitually worked Wednesdays to maintain full‑time hours.
- Runyon had prior discipline in 2008 (three‑day suspension) for tardiness/absenteeism and admitted awareness that further discipline could lead to termination.
- Runyon missed scheduled shifts on Sunday March 22 and Monday March 23, 2009 (he claims he called in; employer disputes notice), worked Tuesday March 24, and either requested or habitually worked Wednesday March 25 but clocked out two hours early saying he had to "take care of business."
- On March 26 WKCC discharged Runyon for unexcused absences, chronic tardiness, and leaving early without explanation; Runyon applied for unemployment benefits.
- The Unemployment Appeals referee found misconduct; the Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission reversed and awarded benefits. WKCC sued under KRS 341.450; the circuit court entered a default against Runyon (who was named but did not answer) and then on the merits affirmed the Commission; the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Kentucky Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (WKCC) | Defendant's Argument (Runyon/Commission) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of default judgment | Default judgment barred review and was proper because Runyon did not answer | KRS 341.450 does not require defendants other than the Commission to answer; default was improper | Default judgment void ab initio because statutory procedure governs and Runyon was not required to answer |
| Sufficiency of Commission factual findings | Employer: evidence supports that Runyon was scheduled/expected to work Wed. March 25 and knew job was jeopardized after 2008 suspension | Commission found Runyon was not warned job was in jeopardy and not scheduled that Wednesday | Commission’s factual findings on those two points not supported by substantial evidence; appellate court reversed |
| Whether absences/attendance constituted misconduct (unsatisfactory attendance) | WKCC: prior suspension + warnings + three unexcused absences show unsatisfactory attendance justifying disqualification | Commission: employer failed to prove unsatisfactory attendance (only two absences on record; no dates/details of prior issues) | Court: Employer met burden to show unsatisfactory attendance; Runyon failed to prove good cause; benefits denied on this basis |
| Whether failure to explain early departure violated employer rule (knowing rule violation) | WKCC: Runyon knew policy and his vague "take care of business" was insufficient, so he knowingly violated rule | Commission: because Runyon allegedly wasn't scheduled that day, no rule violation requiring disqualification | Court: Runyon was expected to work that day and violated the attendance policy by leaving without adequate reason; disqualification appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Com’n v. Carter, 689 S.W.2d 360 (Ky. 1985) (statutory appeal procedure under KRS 341.450 governs over inconsistent civil rules)
- Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Com’n v. Cecil, 381 S.W.3d 238 (Ky. 2012) (standard: Commission’s factual findings bind if supported by substantial evidence; review of legal application follows)
- Brown Hotel Co. v. Edwards, 365 S.W.2d 299 (Ky. 1962) (employer bears burden to prove unsatisfactory attendance; burden shifts to employee to prove good cause)
- Broadway & Fourth Ave. Realty Co. v. Crabtree, 365 S.W.2d 313 (Ky. 1963) (persistent or chronic absenteeism after warnings can constitute misconduct; even a single absence after a specific warning may suffice)