The appeals referee disqualified the appellant from unemployment compensation benefits on the ground that, while he had twice given notice to a supervisor of his impending week-long absence from work, he had not done so to the proper superior as provided by the employer’s work rules. The Unemployment Appeals Commission affirmed. As a matter of law, however, these actions do not amount to “misconduct” under section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1993). Doyle v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 635 So.2d 1028 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); King v. Walgreen Co., 635 So.2d 997 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Castillo v. Sally Beauty Co., 637 So.2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Kelley v. Pueblo Wholesale Co., 627 So.2d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Nelson v. Burdines, Inc., 611 So.2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Benitez v. Girlfriday, Inc., 609 So.2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Adams v. Burdines, Inc., 600 So.2d 1233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Woskoff v. Desta Enters., 187 So.2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); Spaulding v. Florida Indus. Comm’n, 154 So.2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Accordingly, the order is reversed with directions to afford the appellant the benefits claimed.
Tanav v. DHL
639 So. 2d 1053
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.1994Check TreatmentAI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.