*1 its decision was that indicates that evidence TOYOTA, INC., uncertainty as of its
precautionary, view FAIRFIELD It Petitioner-Appellee, the ABG strikers. intentions of to the workers who presented evidence that also v. though paid, were even reported and the Darrin S. BRUEGGE on employees, sent home. they were Board, Employment Appeal hand, testimony that presented the other Respondents-Appellants. representatives by company told they were not and were no was available that work No. 88-1881. 5, 1986, paid. On June they would be
told Appeals of Iowa. Court company rescinded same date that agree- parties’ day-to-day employment Oct. 1989. ment, company posted signs an- As Corrected Oct. 1989. through that members nounced media free IBEW were to come to work. However, there no that directly or its informed the union lat- ruled that these
members. board since actions did not constitute recall
ter any un- given
individual notice was that, although a find member. We
ion ruling sup-
contrary also could have been evidence, evi-
ported by the the board’s conclusions.
dence did
The facts further indicated employees on
three named called ALCOA 5, asking They was available.
June work available, did but
were told work result, remand
not return. As a the board pertained to three
ed the matter as it section,
employees to the claims division service, Department Employ
job
ment for a determination Services employees three had refused
whether these Although there is evidence in the
recall. on the of these
record that bears situation findings were made employees,
three no hearing deputy. or the Since officer made,
findings the board’s deci were ever three to remand in the case of these
sion
employees correct. was also
REVERSED. *2 Dewey Whitten,
Blair H. and William C. Employment Bd., Appeal respondents- for appellants. Foss,
Craig Gookin, R. Foss Kuiken & P.C., Fairfield, petitioner-appellee. by DONIELSON, Considered P.J., HAYDEN, JJ„ but de- and SCHLEGEL en cided banc.
SCHLEGEL, Judge. Respondent Bruegge Darrin S. was em- ployed as by petitioner a mechanic Fairfield Toyota, part job, Inc. As of his it was necessary Bruegge to road test dealer and customer cars. In June 1985 Fairfield Toyota received notice from its insurance company indicating coverage its Bruegge jeopardy. was in theAt time this Bruegge notice was issued speed- one conviction, two convictions for deliber- tire squealing, ate and one traffic accident for which not charged. Bruegge’s he was supervisor, spoke Byers, Dennis to him about his At record. this time Bruegge first informed that insurabili- ty prerequisite was a for his continued 20, 1986, June Bruegge On was involved in another accident when he hitting went into a ditch avoid a deer. Byers The insurance informed it of errors at law. 17A.20 to the correction Bruegge. longer cover would Foods, resign job. Rights Inc. v. Iowa Civil Commis asked to sion, unemployment Bruegge filed a claim for *3 of the district court The review function representa- A compensation. Job Service is to errors of under section 17A.19 correct ground the that denied him benefits on tive specified in section law which are discharged for misconduct. he had been 19(8). of 17A. When we review decisions hearing. Bruegge sought an administrative in the district court which were rendered Bruegge en- hearing officer found The appellate body capacity its as an under becoming uninsur- by in misconduct gaged 17A.19,the issue for our determina ap- section hearing The decision officer’s able. correctly tion is the district court predicated upon two bases. He whether pears be in the applied Budding Depart misconduct is found fact the law. Iowa concluded v. Bruegge’s uninsurability need not Service, 219, 221 of 337 N.W.2d ment Job from the circumstances of his be derived (Iowa make App.1983). In order to that separate accidents and traffic violations. determination, apply we the standards of to examine hearing proceeded The officer 17A.19(8) agency the section action Bruegge’s and concluded he last accident this court’s conclusions determine whether driving defensively and not been could had as district are the same those the court. hearing The avoided the accident. have County Hospital v. Jackson Public Public in finding of resulted a officer’s misconduct Board, Employment Relations Bruegge. of benefits for denial 429-30 N.W.2d Employment the Bruegge appealed to the reversing There are two bases for The reversed the Appeal Board. board by the district court. denial of benefits hearing finding officer’s of misconduct and given The first relates to the deference found, Bruegge’s part, for the most findings Employment Ap- the the fact had outside his control actions been The relates to the defi- peal Board. second driving record did not reflect a series nition and the failure to of misconduct disregard of violations of the law or a as a show that misconduct existed matter operation of motor In a vehicle. lawful of law. addition, the found the decision to board premised in had been terminate We, Findings. like the I. Fact employer’s in reduc- part upon his interest court, by agency’s are bound district maintaining ing insurance costs. or its are findings findings sup if fact those judi- petition for Toyota Fairfield filed a by evidence. Evidence ported The court reversed the cial review. district person reasonable would is substantial a of the and reinstated the decision board reaching adequate find it for decision. hearing The court found officer. Hospital v. Iowa Peoples Memorial Civil record, Bruegge’s driving which rendered Comm'n, (Iowa Rights uninsurable, constituted misconduct. him Employment Appeal Board for court found no the board’s case, found: “In this claimant’s discharge Bruegge’s conclusion that a series of violations record does reflect con- employer’s on his economic been based disregard opera of the lawful of the law or cerns. vehicle, as the case motor was tion of a binding effect the basis of the Cook.” On appeals Bruegge now the decision determination, both the dis factual He there court. contends was sub- district obligated to court are trict court and this record to sustain stantial Ap finding Employment affirm the argues decision. He dis- the board’s was no misconduct. peal Board there as matter of law in court erred trict finding in this case. misconduct Iowa section 96.- II. Misconduct. Code disqualified 5(2) provides that a claimant scope in cases aris
Our
of review
unemployment benefits
the de-
Proce
“[i]f
out of the Iowa Administrative
individual has been
partment finds that the
Act is limited
Iowa
section
dure
under
Code
volun-
for
in connection
volved
the case was whether he
discharged
misconduct
employment.”
quit
discharged
tarily
with
individual’s
or
for miscon-
ruling
that he
duct.
by
is defined
345 Iowa Ad-
Misconduct
misconduct, the Iowa court stated:
4.32(1)
Code
as:
ministrative
he
of his
While
received most
act or omission
work-
[A]
during
and in
er
material breach of
citations
non-work hours
which constitutes
arising
obligations
car,
out of
personal
they
directly
the duties
bore
on
all
such
contract of
worker’s
ability
work
Hawkeye.
term
as the
is used
Misconduct
this,
expressed
even
fear to
knew
*4
provision
being
disqualification
as
limited
Hawkeye
losing his
He
about
license.
evincing such
or
to
willful wan-
conduct
him
anyone
does not claim that
forced
to
employer’s
of an
disregard
ton
interest
road,
per-
yet
violate the
of the
he
laws
as
in
violation or dis-
is found
doing
in
so.
sisted
regard
standards of behavior which
of
Id. at
702.
right
expect
employer
the
has a
to
of
Cook is
distinguishable
from this
employees,
negli-
or in
or
carelessness
Employment Appeal
case as the
Board
gence
degree of recurrence
of such
as to
equal culpability, wrongful
in-
no
manifest
found. There is
evidence that from the
design,
tent
or to
an
or evil
show
inten-
time it was
to Bruegge
made known
disregard
tional
substantial
problem,
his
record was a
he was
employer’s
employee’s
interests or of the
guilty of
of
willful violations
the traffic
obligations
employer.
duties and
to the
any
laws or
other. Cook was
to
found
inefficiency,
On
mere
the other hand
un-
intentionally
laws,
have
the
know
violated
conduct,
satisfactory
good per-
failure in
ing
jeopardize
employ
it would
his
as
inability
formance
the result of
or
The
ment.
statute defines misconduct as a
incapacity,
ordinary
inadvertencies or
omission,
“deliberate” act or
con
as
instances,
negligence in
good
isolated
or
“wanton
evincing
duct
or
dis
willful
in judgment
faith errors
or discretion are
regard” of
employer’s
an
interest. Con
not to be deemed misconduct within the
Cook,
trary
Bruegge
the
in
to
decision
once
meaning
the
of
statute.
danger
losing
was aware of the
of
his
accepted by
This definition has been
insurance he committed no willful act or
Supreme
accurately
Iowa
Court as
reflect
omission. The decision of
district court
ing
legislature.
of
Huntoon
intent
is reversed.
Service,
Dept.
v. Iowa
Job
275
of
REVERSED.
denied,
445,
(Iowa
1979),
cert.
U.S.
(1979).
100 S.Ct.
As definition mis concur. conduct must be in nature to disqualification unemploy a HABHAB, JJ., SACKETT and enough ment benefits. Misconduct serious specially concur. discharge employee warrant an is necessarily enough serious to warrant J., DONIELSON, dissents. Budding, denial of benefits. 337 N.W.2d
at 222. SACKETT, Judge (specially concurring). The only Iowa to deal specifically case specially I majority’s concur with the de- uninsurability with as misconduct is Cook cision reverse the trial court because I Service, Department v. Iowa Job find there is substantial evidence Cook, N.W.2d 698 agency record to affirm the decision. claimant awas truck driver who had amassed a speeding number of violations. HABHAB, danger J., joins special losing
He was his license. He this was discharged. principle question The in- concurrence. attempts distinguish majority
DONIELSON, (dissenting). Judge by arguing there case are not in dis the facts this As guilty viola- Bruegge any willful was may determine as matter pute, this court made laws after it was tions of the traffic Bruegge’s conduct or not of law whether record to him his was known Harlan this constituted misconduct. case opinion in employer. concern to Service, Dept. 350 N.W.2d Job v. Iowa committed not reflect that Cook Cook does 192, 193 (Iowa Upon a review of the employer any traffic offenses after law, I would con record and relevant case citations, any get not to more urged him discharged for miscon Bruegge clude yet Supreme Court found Iowa ap duct, unemployment benefits were uninsurability misconduct. constituted propriately in this matter. denied Bruegge apprised Even not been accumulat- “insurable,” of the need to remain earlier em- driving record which caused his reasonably he have this is should determine ployer’s insurance expected specific adhere to even without final act he was uninsurable. While the *5 traffic notice. A not accumulate precipitated determination was which this tickets, impair insura- which will a driver’s accident, an this is not decisive fact job bility, imposed upon is whose those this case. employer’s ve duties include their accident, single but be- because Emp. Byrd hicles. v. Review Bd. Ind. and traffic viola- cause a series of accidents (Ind.Ct.App. Div., 469 N.E.2d Sec. him uninsurable. Insurabili- tions rendered regular is a When vehicle Bruegge’s job. ty prerequisite part job, he be employee’s should an necessarily status as “insurable” is One’s aware, being specifically informed without the numer- from an examination of derived insura- employer, continued comprise person’s driv- ous incidents that bility prerequisite is insurability en- record. The issue way only in which is Cook distin- ex- acts which must be compasses several ease hand is guishable from the at together. type aggre- It this amined is violations, all of of traffic involved a series apart gate this case review which sets con- apparently volitional. In were which sin- typical misconduct case which a in- trast, this case now before court if it analyzed to determine gle incident is and two acci- three volitional acts volves intentional and substantial constitutes an I find this distinction dents. would not employer’s interests. disregard of an At is persuasive. issue whether be record, ap- it is examining Bruegge’s status constitutes Bruegge’s uninsurable parent speeding convictions long as of the acts As some misconduct. squealing acts. He tires were volitional Bruegge’s uninsura- which contributed not, cannot, these were not and does claim acts, I bility and volitional are deliberate totality A acts. review applicable would find Cook Bruegge’s driving record reveals sufficient Bruegge’s matter consti- conduct this willfulness, deliberateness, culpability tutes misconduct. Bruegge’s “uninsurable” sta- to conclude acquire To tus amounted misconduct. (speeding squealing
two convictions
tires) commencement of his em- after the an intentional and sub-
ployment, evinces employer’s inter- disregard of his
stantial
ests.