Court Opinion

ID: 9551307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:51:06.319011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:30.352552
License: Public Domain

BAKES, Justice
(concurring specially) :
In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Industrial Commission found:
“III
“The claimant submitted an application to the Bonners Ferry Ranger District dated June 5, 1975. This application was the standard federal employment application form which required the applicant to list the last employment in federal service and all employment experience within the previous fifteen years. The claimant had secured the application on June 5 from the Coeur d’Alene office of the Forest Service and learned that the application had to be postmarked by 4:00 p. m. June 6 to be within the deadline for submission of applications. The claimant mailed and completed application by special delivery and it was received by the Bonners Ferry Ranger District on June 9. The claimant was subsequently offered and accepted the employment he sought.
“IV
“The claimant listed in his application only the previous employment which he believed pertinent to the surveyor’s aide position he was seeking. He omitted all previous federal employment and considerable civilian employment to the extent that ten to fifteen jobs were omitted. The claimant omitted his full employment history because he believed that only that portion which he felt was pertinent to surveying work should be included. He also considered the time within which he could submit his application. The claimant was aware that his personnel records were on file at the Forest Service office in Coeur d’Alene and those records were more complete.” Tr., p. 45.
Regarding the 1969 Post Office position that Wroble omitted from the application, the Industrial Commission found:
“V
“. . . The claimant’s personnel records show that the 1969 employment was terminated because the claimant was absent from work without permission. The claimant had forgotten the 1969 employment and did not recall it until he was shown his personnel records at a subsequent time. The claimant denied that he was discharged from this employment and recalls that he resigned during a telephone conversation with his supervisor because the hours of work were affecting his health.” Tr., p. 46.
Based on these findings, the Commission then concluded:
“IV
“The deliberate and substantial omission of material called for in a job application violated the employer’s rules and requirements contained in the application and therefore constituted misconduct in connection with the claimant’s employment.” Tr., p. 48.
The Industrial Commission applied the definition of misconduct enunciated by this Court in Oliver v. Creamer Heating & Appliance Co., supra, concluding that Wroble deliberately violated the employer’s rules, *904and barred his recovery of unemployment compensation benefits.
A determination by an employer that an employee has committed misconduct constituting grounds for discharge is not binding on the Industrial Commission. The question whether an employee has committed “misconduct” within the meaning of I.C. § 72-1366(e) which would bar recovery of unemployment compensation benefits is in the first instance for the Department of Employment and the Industrial Commission, but reviewable by this Court. Mata v. Broadmore Homes, 95 Idaho 873, 522 P.2d 586 (1974); Garrow v. Idaho State School & Hospital, 95 Idaho 817, 520 P.2d 864 (1974). The Industrial Commission in this case appears to have applied a per se rule that any violation of any rule of an employer will constitute misconduct and a bar to benefits. In effect, the Industrial Commission was allowing the employer to define, by adoption of rules and regulations and by its determination that an employee has violated such rules and regulations, what will constitute misconduct under the statute. The legislature has not defined misconduct in I.C. § 72-1366(e), and therefore this Court must do so, consistent with what we perceive to be legislative intent. It is manifest that the legislature did not intend that misconduct such as would bar recovery of benefits under the act would be defined by the employer.
The Industrial Commission found that the reason Wroble deliberately failed to list all of his previous employment experience was that he felt constrained by the time deadline for applications, that he believed that other past employment was not relevant to surveying work, and also that he had forgotten about the 1969 Post Office position. Based on these findings, I agree that as a matter of law Wroble’s failure to include this data on his application form did not constitute misconduct sufficient to bar recovery of benefits under the Employment Security Law.