Case Name: Joy S. ROSMOND, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION and NSA Polymers, Inc., Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1995-03-03
Citations: 651 So. 2d 233
Docket Number: No. 93-2772
Parties: Joy S. ROSMOND, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION and NSA Polymers, Inc., Appellee.
Judges: PETERSON, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 651
Pages: 233–237

Head Matter:
Joy S. ROSMOND, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION and NSA Polymers, Inc., Appellee.
No. 93-2772.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
March 3, 1995.
Joy S. Rosmond, pro se.
William T. Moore, Tallahassee, for appellee Unemployment Appeals Com’n.
No appearance for appellee NSA Polymers, Inc.

Opinion:
GOSHORN, Judge.
Rosmond appeals from an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission denying her unemployment compensation benefits. Rosmond, an accountant for a plastics manufacturing firm, was fired after she refused to fill out a form relating to the costing process of certain color changes which she had researched. The hearing officer concluded that she intentionally refused to follow a valid work order from her supervisor and that this act constituted misconduct, thus disqualifying her from receiving benefits. The commission affirmed.
The form in question is entitled "ENGINEERING CHANGE NOTICE"; however, in reality, it is a simple form to be filled out by an employee suggesting a product change. To support an employee's recommendation, only five items of information are required. These merely identify the product to be changed, the reason for the change, and the areas of the company affected by the recommended change. Space is provided for approval by various departments. The information to be provided does not require an engineering background. In fact, the evidence shows that the company employed only one engineer and that the form in question had previously been completed by a buyer, an assembly person, a molding representative, and a customer service person.
We find there is competent evidence that Rosmond attended a company meeting on April 16, 1998. The written stated purpose of the meeting was to inform all employees of the intended use of the Engineering Change Notice (ECN) procedure, to discuss the procedure, and to learn of any concerns or suggestions for improvement. It was made clear that anyone could request a change and that the person requesting the change must write up the request on the ECN form.
In December of 1992, as a result of her job responsibilities, Rosmond suggested a product change and was requested to fill out an ENC form. She refused to do so, contending that she was not capable of filling out the form. She admits that she could have completed parts of the form, but made no effort to do so. The evidence supports the unemployment appeals referee's findings that the specific task requested of Rosmond was within the scope of Rosmond's employment and that "[ajlthough the claimant [testified she] felt unqualified to do the work correctly, she made no attempt to complete the task, and never .asked for help, either from her supervisor or others. She simply refused to do the work."
This court is not to substitute its judgment for the agency's judgment as to the weight of the evidence on any disputed finding of fact. § 120.68(10), Fla.Stat. (1993); Dart Indus., Inc. v. Department of Labor & Employment Sec., Div. of Unemployment Compensation, 596 So.2d 725 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Because there is competent substantial evidence to support the hearing officer's finding that Rosmond's action was insubordinate and constituted misconduct, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON, J., concurs.
W. SHARP, J., dissents, with opinion.