IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 
FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2005 
TERRY ROBERTS SITE WORK, INC., 
Appellant, 
v. CASE NO. 5D04-1797 
UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, 
Appellee. 
_____________________________________/ 
Opinion filed August 12, 2005 
Administrative Appeal from the 
Unemployment Appeals Commission 
John W. Bolanovich of Bogin, Munns & 
Munns, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. 
John D. Maher, Tallahassee, for Appellee. 
PETERSON, J. 

Terry Roberts Site Work, Inc., ("TRS"), appeals a final order of the 
Unemployment Appeals Commission, ("UAC"), reversing the decision of an appeals 
referee who determined Steven R. Crowell was discharged for misconduct connected 
with work by soliciting another TRS employee to work for Crowell if he should start a 
new business. 

The only witness at the hearing, other than Crowell's wife, was the employee who 
Crowell solicited. The employee testified that Crowell was his supervisor, that Crowell 
stated he would be starting a business of his own and would pay more than TRS if the
employee would work for the new business. Mrs. Crowell attended the hearing in place 
of her husband and testified that initially the plan was to start a business the following 
April, but revised it to several years later upon learning of the large amount of funds 
necessary for start up costs. 

The appeals referee found Crowell disqualified to receive benefits because he 
had been properly discharged for misconduct at work by attempting to recruit a TRS 
employee to join his business. The UAC found that Crowell was entitled to benefits and 
reversed the appeals referee decision after finding that it was "not in accordance with 
the law." The UAC reasoned that no competent evidence established that Crowell's 
new business would compete with TRS. We disagree. “Misconduct” includes, but is not 
limited to, “conduct demonstrating willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interest 
and found to be a deliberate violation or disregard of the standards of behavior which 
the employer has a right to expect of his or her employee.” § 443.036(29)(a), Fla. Stat. 
(2003). An employer has a right to expect that his or her employee will not solicit fellow 
employees on the job to join the employee’s competing business venture. See 
Kohlhauff v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 646 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) 
(holding unemployment compensation claimant’s conduct in asking fellow employees 
whether they would like to join him in a business venture similar to their existing 
employment was misconduct disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits). Further, 
we agree with TRS that it is immaterial whether TRS provided competent evidence as to 
the issue of whether the business being formed by Crowell would be one that would 
“compete” with TRS. Crowell's admitted acts in using company time for his own 
personal gain, even if “it was only talk,” constitutes misconduct connected with work as
a matter of law. Cf. Rycraft v. United Technologies, 449 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 4th DCA 
1984) (recognizing that employee who had, inter alia, performed personal work at his 
desk and read want ads during working hours constituted misconduct connected with 
work, disqualifying employee for unemployment benefits); Alterman Transport Lines, 
Inc. v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 410 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) 
(recognizing that worker who had utilized company employees on his personal projects 
at jobsite constituted misconduct connected with work, disqualifying worker for 
unemployment benefits). 

We vacate the UAC's reversal with instructions to reinstate the appeal referee's 
findings. 

REVERSED AND REMANDED. 
THOMPSON and SAWAYA, JJ., concur.