( Jones )
( Oklahoma County - James B. Blevins )
AFFIRMED
Patricia E. Neel, Karen Carden Walsh, Tulsa, Oklahoma, For Plaintiff/Appellant
Cara S. Nicklas, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Defendants/Appellees
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this unemployment compensation case, Plaintiff/Appellant Ehlinger contends that denial of her claim for compensation should have been set aside because (1) her former employer City of Bixby failed to disclose that she was not terminated for lack of work, (2) the city manager said she was terminated for lack of work, and (3) City made material misrepresentations of fact during the telephone hearing conducted by the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission Appeal Tribunal.
Ehlinger worked as city treasurer and finance director for the City from January 23, 1990 until February 13, 1992. On the latter date she tendered her resignation, effective April 15, 1992. The city manager responded by memorandum telling her that her resignation would be effective immediately. Ehlinger then applied for unemployment compensation. On her application, in the section "Reason for Separation," Ehlinger checked the box for "Quit."' For some reason, when the Commission sent the City notice of Ehlinger's application, the notice indicated that the reason for separation was "lack of work."
The City responded to the notice by asking that Ehlinger's request be denied because she "resigned her position." The Commission initially determined that Ehlinger was not entitled to compensation because she left work voluntarily without good cause connected to the work. Ehlinger appealed to the Appeal Tribunal of the Commission, which conducted a hearing and received evidence by telephone, and then issued an opinion affirming denial of compensation. The Appeal Tribunal opinion stated, in relevant part:
"The claimant was employed as City Treasurer from January 23, 1990 to February 13, 1992. She resigned voluntarily.
New City Council members were elected in April, 1991. The claimant asserts these persons wished her terminated due to the claimant's support of a measure the council members opposed. A new City Manager was hired in August, 1991. The claimant asserts that person was instructed to fire her.
The claimant bases this assertion on a statement made by a previous acting City Manager. That person told the claimant he had been told to fire her. The claimant assumed the new City Manager would have been told the same thing.
The claimant received two reprimands from the new Manager. The first of these occurred in October, 1991. The claimant was reprimanded for permitting an employee to work overtime without authorization. The claimant did do this, but had believed the Manager had given such authorization. The second reprimand occurred in December, 1991 and concerned the claimant's failure to inform the City Manager that she was leaving on a vacation. The claimant had received authorization for the vacation in July from a previous manager, but did fail to tell the current manager of this.
The claimant contends these reprimands showed the employer's intent to terminate her and caused her excessive stress. The claimant had also provided information to a Grand Jury and to the District Attorney which resulted in certain council members pleading guilty to violations of the Open Meetings Act. The claimant contends this also motivated the employer's actions. The employer denies that an effort was under way to terminate the claimant.
Section 2-404 of the Act provides a disqualification if it is found that a claimant left work voluntarily without good cause connected to employment. In determining the existence of good cause, there shall be considered, among other factors, the degree of risk involved to the claimant's health, safety or morals, or changes in the contract of hire that affect working conditions, hours or wages.
The claimant's assertions are based largely on hearsay and innuendo. No information has been presented to support the allegation that the City Manager had been told to fire the claimant. The reprimands received by the claimant were, in fact, correct by the claimant's own testimony. ... The claimant has not shown the working conditions were rendered untenable due to any action by the employer. The claimant quit without good cause connected to the work.6"
Ehlinger appealed next to the Board of Review, which issued a single-page ruling adopting the findings and conclusions of the Appeal Tribunal. Ehlinger did not seek direct judicial review by appeal to the district court, as permitted by