Court Opinion

ID: 9666233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:08:17.703387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:25.126609
License: Public Domain

OXBERGER, Chief Judge,
(dissenting).
I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusions that the actions of the employee constituted misconduct and that there was not a change in the employment contract.
The key question here in determining if the employee is guilty of misconduct is whether the failure to work overtime on the weekend in question was in good faith or for good cause. Woods v. Iowa Department of Job Service, 327 N.W.2d 768, 771 (Iowa Ct.App.1982). As the majority notes, *305a refusal to report to work must be “deliberate and unjustifiable” in order to disqualify the claimant from unemployment benefits. In re Matter of Cantrell, 44 N.C.App. 718, 722, 263 S.E.2d 1, 3-4 (1980). When an employee is merely “balky and argumentative” his actions do not constitute misconduct. Johnson v. Department of Employment Sec., 138 Vt. 554, 420 A.2d 106 (1980).
Given the fact situation here, I believe the employee’s conduct can be described as argumentative at best, but did not reflect willful disregard for the employer’s interests. He was told to report concerns about his job to the crew foreman. The claimant did not report to work, believing that the foreman had explained the problems to the employer. Endicott was never told that he would be fired if he did not report to work for the weekend. The record shows his failure to report for work was not misconduct.
Further, I agree with the trial court that the actions of the employer constituted a change in the employment contract and cannot result in disqualification of the employee to benefits. Iowa Admin.Code § 370-4.26(1). As indicated in the Administrative Code, a substantial change includes changes in hours. Id.
In the three years that Endicott worked for his employer, he had never been asked to work a full week and also work a weekend. The original contract indicated Endi-cott would work an eight-hour day, Monday through Friday, and “some overtime is allowed” (emphasis added).
As the cases cited by the majority reveal, refusal to work occasional reasonable hours could constitute misconduct, but requiring the employee to work overtime with three to four hours notice, when the employee had never been required to work such hours in the three years the contract was in force, and where the contract only states “some” overtime hours are “allowed” (not required), there has been a substantial change in the contract and the employee’s refusal to comply does not found a basis to deny benefits.
I agree with the trial court the board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence, and is contrary to statute and agency rules.