Court Opinion

ID: 9856149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:39:13.987152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:26:09.275602
License: Public Domain

BROTHERTON, Justice
dissenting:
I must dissent to the majority’s holding in this case. The appellant in this case was an admitted alcoholic and he admitted that he was drinking on the night in question. He reported to work at least four hours late, his eyes were extremely red, and alcohol could be smelled at a distance of five or six feet. The appellant had been warned about showing up drunk on two previous occasions and on this occasion his employment was terminated. While no one of these factors would be a reliable indication that the appellant was drunk, the combination of them indicates that the claimant was inebriated.
The claimant was a foreman, whose duties included the supervision of a number of other employees of the employer. Claimant’s occupation was that of a coal miner, work which by its very nature could be dangerous and would require a clear head and agile body to insure that nothing would take place on his shift that would endanger the lives of those he supervised. West Virginia Code § 21A-6-3 (Supp.1984) provides that intoxication or drunkeness is gross misconduct standing alone, and termination for which disqualifies the appellant from unemployment compensation. To reverse the Board of Review by stating *397it was plainly wrong makes a mockery of the W.Va.Code. What good is there in having a law if the courts will not enforce it even in the face of overwhelming evidence?
I do not believe the decision of the Board of Review was plainly wrong and, therefore, I feel we should have affirmed the decision of the Board of Review.