Snow v. DWS

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Andrea R. Snow,

Petitioner,

v.

Department of Workforce Services, Workforce Appeals Board; and Phone Directories Co., Inc.,

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030375-CA
 

F I L E D
(September 25, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 321

-----

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys: Andrea Snow, Jensen, Petitioner Pro Se

Michael R. Medley, Salt Lake City, for Respondents

-----

Before Judges Jackson, Greenwood, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Andrea Snow seeks judicial review of a decision of the Workforce Appeals Board determining that she is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits because she was terminated from her employment for just cause. The case is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition.

Snow challenges some of the Board's 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).

Snow's employment was terminated for failing to report for work as scheduled or to call her employer to report her absences. The Administrative Law Judge found "the employer's testimony to be more plausible and reasonable than the claimant's testimony," and, on that basis, found that "the claimant did not call her supervisor as required by the employer." The Board adopted this finding. We conclude that the finding that Snow failed to call is supported by substantial evidence in the record. After the close of the hearing, Snow produced identical, unsworn statements signed by four of her relatives, and an additional statement by a co-worker, each stating that she always called in to report her absences. However, none of these individuals testified at the hearing, and the statements were not introduced into evidence.

An individual is ineligible for unemployment benefits if she 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 concluded that failing to report for work and failing to call in to report absences was contrary to the employer's financial interests and interest in maintaining an adequate workforce. The Board concluded that Snow had knowledge of the expectations that she report to work or call in to report her absences. Finally, the Board concluded that even assuming her illness prevented her from working, it did not prevent her from calling her supervisor as required by the employer. "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.'" Id. (citation omitted). The determination that Snow was discharged for just cause was reasonable and rational.

We affirm the decision of the Board.

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge