Opinion ID: 1823228
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Prior Record

Text: In her order denying benefits, the referee stated that Mason's refusal to report to work as scheduled for reasons of a noncompelling nature constituted valid grounds for disqualification. This is the wrong standard for disqualification. As noted above, chapter 443 authorizes disqualification based on willful or wanton conduct that deliberately disregards the employer's standards. The criterion applied by the refereei.e., whether the absence was for a compelling reasondiffers vastly from this statutory definition and injects into the scheme an element of subjectiveness and uncertainty that the statute seeks to avoid, for who is to say what constitutes a compelling reason? (How pressing must a transportation problem be? How severe must a personal illness or injury be? How dire a family problem? How catastrophic an act of God?) Pursuant to this Court's holding in Tallahassee Housing, the proper criterion for determining whether a lapse in attendance constitutes misconduct is whether the lapse was authorized. In the present case, the referee determined that the two precipitating acts and several of Mason's prior lapses in attendance were authorized or otherwise comported with chapter 443. The referee, however, did not determine that the remaining lapses in Mason's prior record were un authorized. [14] Nor could the referee have done so, for no such inquiry was made at the hearing. Mason was tardy or absent on a number of occasions throughout his tenure at Load King, but the referee asked only whether one specific lapse (on February 8) was approved by the employer and concluded that this lapse was authorized. [15] On the present record, it is entirely possible that Mason was fired for excessive authorized lapses in attendance. In point of fact, the printed counseling form that Load King gave Mason on January 29 depicted a number of possible offenses, but the critical box stating Unexcused Absence(s) was not checked off. The referee concluded simply that Mason was discharged due to his attendance. Thus, not only did Load King fail to show that the two acts precipitating Mason's discharge constituted misconduct, but Load King also failed to show that the lapses in his prior record were unauthorized.