( Joplin )
( Oklahoma County - Niles Jackson )
Karen Jayne, Gary A. Taylor, Legal Aid of Western Oklahoma, Inc. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Plaintiff/Appellant
Timothy E. Rhodes, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Defendant/Appellee Oklahoma Employment Security Commission
1/ Appellant David J. Erickson (Employee) seeks review of an order of the trial court affirming a decision of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (OESC) denying him unemployment benefits. Herein, Employee asserts the OESC decision lacks evidentiary support, thwarts the underlying purpose of the Oklahoma Unemployment Act, and runs contrary to statutory provisions arguably allowing benefits under the circumstances of this case. We find the decision free of vitiating legal error and supported by evidence and affirm the trial court's order.
2/ Employee worked for Pizza Inn (Employer) as a delivery person. As a condition of the job, Employer required Employee to use his own vehicle for his delivery duties. While delivering pizzas, Employee's car broke down. Employee notified Employer and requested alterative work to pay for necessary repairs. Employer demurred and told Employee to check back when he had repaired his car. One week later, Employee again requested alternative work, but was told no other work was available and was again told to check back when he had repaired his car.
3/ Employee, considering himself laid off or discharged from the employment, then applied for unemployment benefits. The OESC local office initially denied the claim on a determination that Employee was "separated from employment when his car broke down and left him unable to deliver food for his employer," that Employee was "aware at the time of hire that the delivery vehicle was his responsibility," and that "this is considered quitting for personal reasons and not for just cause connected with work."
4/ Employee appealed to the Appeal Tribunal. Before the Hearing Officer, only Employee (appearing pro se and without counsel) testified, and averred that at the time of his hiring, he understood he had to supply his own vehicle for his delivery duties, but that he "was under the impression if my car broke down Employer would find something for me to do," that he had requested alternative work from Employer, that Employer refused his request, and that he had not quit his job with Employer.' On consideration of the evidence, the Hearing Officer held:
"Section