Petitioner-employee appeals from the district court decision on judicial review affirming her disqualification from receipt of unemployment benefits. She asserts the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the finding that she committed the acts complained of and that, in any event, those acts do not constitute misconduct as that term is contemplated under Iowa Code section 96.5(2). We reverse and remand.
Petitioner was emplоyed as a “hand finisher” on a full-time basis from October 20, 1977, until December 14, 1981, the date of her discharge. She was one of three or four employees performing that task on a production line. After a change in the materials used, production problems were experienced which led to an increase in the number of boxes rejected by customers as defective. The employees were warned as a group to perform their jobs more effectively. Evidence was conflicting as to whether petitioner was warned individually. Petitioner was discharged after the eighth set of rejections. The employer presented evidence before the hearing officer that production quality improved after petitioner’s discharge. It was impossible to determine from the rejected materials which employee had been responsible for making them.
The agency found that the petitioner had previously performed her job to the satisfaction of the employer and had the ability to perform the job. The agency found that the conduct of the petitioner in the performanсe of her job was contrary to and not in the best interest of her employer, and that “[h]er actions in failing to perform her job in a satisfactory manner while being capable of doing so shows a willful and deliberate disregard of the standards of behavior which an employer has a right to expect from its employees_” The agency concluded, on this basis, that petitioner's actions resulting in her discharge constituted misconduct. That decision was affirmed on judicial review by the district court.
I.
Scope of Review.
Our scope of review in cases arising out of the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act is limited under Iowa Code section 17A.20 to the correction of errors in law.
Foods, Inc. v. Iowa Civil Rights Commission,
Where the facts are disputed, we will adopt the factual determinations made by the agency as long as they are supported by substantial evidenсe in the whole record.
Temple v. Vermeer Manufacturing Co.,
II. Misconduct. The petitioner initially asserts that the agency finding that she was responsible for the return of the defective products is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. However, we do not find it necessary to determine whether or not there was substantial evidence to prove petitioner was responsible for the return of the defective products. Assuming there was substantial evidеnce to support the finding that petitioner was responsible for the defective products, there was not substantial evidence that petitioner’s actions were taken in a willful and deliberate disregard of the standards of behavior which an employer has a right to expect from its employees necessary to constitute “misconduct” as that term is contemplated under Iowa Code section 96.-5(2).
Iowa Code section 96.5(2) (1981), provides that a claimant is disqualified from unemployment benefits “[i]f the department finds that the individual has been discharged for misconduct in connection with the individuals employment.” We address the issue of pеtitioner’s discharge only as it relates to whether or not petitioner is entitled to unemployment benefits.
Budding v. Iowa Department of Job Service,
Misconduct is defined by 370 Iowa Administrative Code section 4.32(l)(a) as:
[A] deliberate act or omission by a worker which constitutes a materiаl breach of the duties and obligations arising out of such worker’s contract of employment. Misconduct as the term is used in the disqualification provision as being limitеd to conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interest as is found in deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior which the emрloyer has the right to expect of employees, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree of recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to the employer. On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolate instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed misconduct within the meaning of the statute.
This definition accurately reflects the intent of the legislature.
Huntoon v. Iowa Department of Job Service,
The misconduct, in order to support a disqualification from unemployment benefits, must be substantial.
Budding v. Iowa Department of Job Service,
We agree with petitioner that the employer did not sustain its burden of proving misconduct. We do not believe the record sustains a finding of misconduct such that petitioner should be denied benefits. There must be some deliberate action or omission or such carelessness as to indi
Accordingly, the employer has failed to show that petitioner’s actions which resulted in her discharge amounted to misconduct as that term is contemplated in Iowa Code section 96.5(2). Petitioner is, therefore, entitled to unemployment benefits.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.