363 So. 2d 100 | Ala. Civ. App. | 1978
This is an unemployment compensation case.
The Appeals Referee found claimant disqualified by Section
The issue is whether claimant is completely disqualified from compensation by Section
"b. If he was discharged from his most recent bona fide work for actual or threatened deliberate misconduct committed in connection with his work . . after previous warnings to the individual.
. . .
*101"c. If he was discharged from his most recent bona fide work for misconduct connected with his work (other than acts mentioned in paragraphs a and b of this subdivision) . . ."
Claimant was fired for absenteeism. The evidence indicates he had worked for his employer seven years. He was considered a good worker. During the last few years a problem with alcohol resulted in an unsatisfactory attendance record. He began missing an average of one work day per week. He was given numerous warnings, oral and written, and had been suspended before being discharged. He eventually obtained other employment and at the time of trial his alcoholism problem had abated.
Since warnings had been given, the question is whether the trial court correctly found his conduct not to be "deliberate" as used in Section
As in Department of Indus. Relations v. Jaco, supra, the trial court has heard the case orally and his findings are clothed with a presumption of correctness unless plainly contrary to the evidence. Zac Smith Stationery Co. v. Reynolds,
AFFIRMED.
BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.