Mays v. DWS

----ooOoo----

Terry Mays,
Petitioner,

v.

Department of Workforce Services,
Workforce Appeals Board;
and Circle Four Farms,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20011016-CA

F I L E D
June 13, 2002 2002 UT App 203 -----

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys:
Terry Mays, Beaver, Petitioner Pro Se
Lorin R. Blauer, Salt Lake City, for Respondents Department of Workforce Services and Workforce Appeals Board

-----

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Terry Mays seeks judicial review of a decision disqualifying him from receiving unemployment compensation. The case is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition.

Mays challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support some factual findings. "When reviewing the factual findings made by an administrative agency, an appellate court will generally reverse only if the findings are not supported by substantial evidence." Drake v. Industrial Comm'n, 939 P.2d 177, 181 (Utah 1997). We defer to the agency because "it stands in a superior position from which to evaluate and weigh the evidence and assess the credibility and accuracy of witnesses' recollections." Harken v. Board of Oil, Gas & Mining, 920 P.2d 1176, 1180 (Utah 1996).

Mays' employment was terminated for insubordination. He claims he reached an agreement with a supervisor that he would be "written up" if he was absent without permission, but would not be terminated. The Administrative Law Judge and Workforce Appeals Board considered conflicting testimony about the alleged agreement and found Mays was only told that he would be disciplined if he did not report to work and there was no agreement he would not be terminated. We defer to the agency determination of witness credibility.

Mays also claims he had enough vacation and personal leave to cover the requested days; however, he did not dispute the accuracy of the employer's calculation before the agency. We do not consider the claim further because it is unsupported by evidence presented to the agency. Mays arranged for a replacement for one day; however, that arrangement was not approved by the employer. The claim that the farm manager "jumped the chain of command" in denying the request for leave is without merit.

An individual is ineligible for unemployment benefits if he is discharged for "just cause." Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-405(2)(a)
(2001). Factors to be considered in determining whether just cause exists are culpability, knowledge, and control. See Utah Admin. Code R994-405-202. "An agency's application of law to its findings of fact will not be disturbed unless its determination 'exceeds the bounds of reasonableness and rationality.'" Johnson v. Department of Emp. Sec., 782 P.2d 965, 968 (Utah Ct. App. 1989)(citation omitted). The Board determined that Mays knew his leave request was denied and that he was told he would be disciplined if he was absent without permission. It was within Mays's control whether he reported to work as required. Finally, his conduct was culpable because it involved defiance of a supervisor's reasonable direction and resulted in the employer being short-handed.

The determination that Mays was discharged for just cause is reasonable and rational. We therefore affirm the decision.
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
 
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge
 
 

______________________________
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge