Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center Inc., 555 P. 2D 696(1976) Facts: Zelma Mitchell petitioner-appellee was dismissed from her position at Lovington Good Samaritan Center Inc. in June 12, 1974. The said grounds for her dismissal would be misconduct. Mrs. Mitchell would file for unemployment. Upon the hearing by the deputy of the unemployment security commission it was founded that Mrs. Mitchell was in fact dismissed from her job for misconduct. Seven weeks of payment was forfeited due to this finding according to State guidelines s 59-9-6(B), N.M.S.A.1953. On July 24, 1974, Mrs. Mitchell would file appeal. On August 28, 1974 referee of the Appeal Tribunal reversed the deputy’s decision and reinstated these benefits to Mrs. Mitchell. On September 13, 1974, the Lovington Good Samaritan Center would file appeal with Appeal Tribunal to the whole Commission pursuant to s 59-9-6(E), N.M.S.A.1953. The Commission would overrule the first appeal and withhold the seven week pay from Mrs. Mitchell. Mrs. Mitchell filed a motion of certiorari and this was granted to her by Commission to the District Court of Bernalillo County pursuant to s 59-9-6(K), N.M.S.A.1953. On January 16, 1976, this was heard by District Court the ruling was to reinstate Mrs. Mitchell benefits.
Issue: Whether Mrs. Mitchell’s actions constituted misconduct under s 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A.1953. That would render Mrs. Mitchell from unemployment benefit payments.
Rule: The term ‘misconduct’ is not defined in the Unemployment Compensation. Under the Wisconsin Supreme Court examined the unemployment compensation act and found no statutory definition of misconduct. But however a formulated definition was placed:
. . . ‘misconduct’ . . . is limited to conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer. On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed ‘misconduct’ within the meaning of the statute.( Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center Inc.)
Analysis: Mrs. Mitchell disregard to company policy regarding dress code, being argumentative to superiors and to other employee’s and name calling. If we take a look again at the ruling that the State of Mexico adopted since these events happen individual and not all at once then misconduct cannot and should not apply.
Conclusion: The district court is reversed and the decision of the Commission is reinstated.
Rodman v. N.M. Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, 764 P.2d 1316 (N.M. 1988)
Facts: Ms. Billi J. Rodman petitioner was employed by Presbyterian Hospital for eight years as a unit secretary. Ms. Rodman was dismissed from employment on February 17. 1987. Dismissal would be on grounds of the third corrective action that can be found in the companies’ personnel policies. Before this policy was put into place Ms. Rodman was placed on a strict policy regarding her ability to keep her personal life away from work. The first incident that accrued would be on June of 1986 Ms. Rodman was reprimanded for receiving several calls and visitors to her work station. These events accrued while Ms. Rodman was on company time not within her schedule break or lunch time in appointed designated areas. Corrective action was set upon Ms. Rodman that she would have no personal phone calls or visitors on company’s time, but to utilize her break times and lunches in appointed designated areas for such...
References: PA205_U3_Case.pdf assignment.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document