Case Name: JAMES D. HINSON ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION and Brian P. Pittman, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2005-11-21
Citations: 914 So. 2d 1033
Docket Number: No. 1D05-2106
Parties: JAMES D. HINSON ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION and Brian P. Pittman, Appellees.
Judges: BARFIELD and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 914
Pages: 1033–1035

Head Matter:
JAMES D. HINSON ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION and Brian P. Pittman, Appellees.
No. 1D05-2106.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Nov. 21, 2005.
E. Lanny Russell and John F. MacLen-nan, of Smith Hulsey & Busey, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Geri Atkinson-Hazelton, General Counsel, Unemployment Appeals Commission and Louis A. Gutierrez, Senior Attorney, Unemployment Appeals Commission, Tallahassee, for Appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from a final order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission rejecting the appeals referee's recommendation and awarding appellee, Brian P. Pittman, unemployment compensation benefits. We reverse and remand with directions.
There is competent, substantial evidence to support the appeals referee's finding that the appellee refused a reasonable work assignment from the employer. The referee correctly concluded that this action constituted misconduct which disqualified appellee from receiving benefits. See Givens v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 888 So.2d 169 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2004)(holding that employee discharged for refusal, contrary to the direct orders of his supervisor, to operate a forklift which was a part of his job assignment, was discharged for misconduct connected with work and ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits); Dorisma v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 544 So.2d 1110, 1111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (holding that appellant's refusal to work additional hours when the employer was faced with an extreme workplace situation constituted misconduct connected with work and, thus, disqualified the appellant from receiving unemployment compensation benefits); Hines v. Dept. of Labor and Employment Sec., 455 So.2d 1104, 1107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (holding that appellant's refusal to comply with foreman's legitimate work order is in itself sufficient to constitute misconduct connected with work); National Ins. Serv. Inc. v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 495 So.2d 244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (holding that refusal to comply with reasonable demand that employees take turns cleaning coffee area constituted misconduct rendering employee ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits).
We reverse the Unemployment Appeals Commission's order and remand with instructions that the appeals referee's decision be reinstated.
BARFIELD and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
ERVIN, J., dissents with opinion.