( Joplin )
( Comanche County - Steve Lile )
REVERSED
Cara S. Nicklas, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Kade A. McClure, Dawn Martens-Rice, Lawton, Oklahoma
1/ Appellant Oklahoma Employment Security Commission (OESC) seeks review of the order of the trial court reversing the OESC order denying unemployment benefits to Appellee Merchellia L. Jackson (Employee). In this appeal, OESC asserts that its order denying benefits stands supported by evidence adduced, and that the trial court erred in substituting its judgment for that of OESC on the facts. We agree with OESC and hold the trial court's order should be reversed.
2/ Employee applied for unemployment benefits after Defendant Days Inn (Employer) ostensibly terminated her employment. The local OESC office initially denied the claim, concluding that Employee had voluntarily left the employment without good cause.
3/ Employee sought further review before an OESC Appeals Tribunal Hearing Officer. At that hearing, Employee testified that she had worked for Employer as a housekeeper for some year and a half. Employee further testified that Employer placed her on "on call" status --- the functional equivalent of termination of the employment, according to Employee --- and that Employer never asked her to return to work. Employer testified that Employee refused a legitimate directive of her supervisor, that the supervisor placed Employee on "on call" status until Employee could consult with the supervisor placed Employee on "on call" status until Employee could consult with Employer, and that when Employee approached Employer for that purpose two days later, Employee demanded her paycheck, saying she had another job in Texas, notwithstanding Employer's assurance of future employment.
4/ On this evidence, the Appeal Tribunal Hearing Officer concluded:
"Testimony given in this case is somewhat in dispute, however, the matter is resolved by the Hearing Officer in finding the Employee voluntarily left the employment. Employee argues that she was placed on call, but never explained why she was placed on call. Employee also had an opportunity to question the Employer about the situation and failed to do so, but did inform him she was going out of town for a job interview. Although the Employer did not have firsthand knowledge of what was discussed with the Employee and his (sic) supervisor, the Hearing Officer concludes the Employee did not prove her case; in fact, some of her testimony was somewhat suspect. After a careful review of all testimony given, the Trier of Fact finds no reason to disturb the Commission's determination."
The Hearing Officer thus affirmed denial of Employee's claim, and the Board of Review also affirmed.
5/ Employee then commenced the instant action in the trial court for judicial review of the OESC order denying her claim. On review of the record and consideration of the briefs and argument of the parties, the trial court found "that the opinion of the Supreme Court in R & R Engineering Co. v. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission Board of Review, 1987 OK 36,737 P.2d 118 (Okla. 1987)is controlling," that "the evidence is consistent with that holding," that "the facts presented do not support a contrary holding," and that "therefore, the decision of the Board of Review should be reversed and that the Employee is entitled to receive benefits." OESC appeals.
6/ The underlying purpose of the Oklahoma Employment Security Act,