523 N.E.2d 519 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1987
The Ohio Bureau of Employment Services ("OBES") denied Barbara M. Young's claim for unemployment compensation. She appealed to the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Board of Review and the board affirmed the referee's recommendation to deny her benefits. The board of review denied her application to institute a further administrative appeal. She then appealed to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, whereupon the trial court reversed the decision of the board of review and allowed appellee's claim.
Appellee had been employed as an assistant manager at Denny's, Inc. She had an opportunity to become a manager, with better pay and more desirable hours, at Tortilla Flats. She gave Denny's a two-week notice, with her resignation to be effective on October 20, 1983. Appellee received vacation pay for the period from October 21 through November 3, 1983. She worked at Tortilla Flats from November 9, 1983 to December 2, 1983 and quit with just cause.
OBES asserts the following assignment of error:
"As contemplated by R.C.
R.C.
"(D) Notwithstanding division (A) of this section, no individual may serve a waiting period or be paid benefits under the following conditions:
"* * *
"(2) For the duration of his unemployment if the administrator finds that:
"(a) He quit his work without just cause or has been discharged for just cause in connection with his work * * *[.]"
In a case with similar facts, the court held that an employee who voluntarily quits a job after six and one-half years of steady employment to accept a job with an increase in pay, even though the new employment lasted only one week and two days, was not disqualified from receiving benefits under R.C.
Next, OBES takes issue with whether appellee satisfied the seven-day requirement of R.C.
"(A) Notwithstanding section
"* * *
"(2) To accept a recall to employment from a prior employer for whom the individual has worked for less than five years, or to accept other employment subject to sections
Appellant contends that the trial court improperly allowed appellee's vacation time, October 21 through November 3, 1983, to constitute "work/employment" for purposes of satisfying the requirement of R.C.
The First District Court of Appeals recently decided this issue and this court agrees with its reasoning. See Hawkins v. OhioBur. of Emp. Serv. (Dec. 10, 1986), Hamilton App. No. C-860039, unreported. In Harkins the court held that the time period compensated by vacation pay constituted employment for purposes of R.C.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the trial court's decision is not unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence. See R.C.
Judgment affirmed.
REILLY and BOWMAN, JJ., concur. *43