Jon C. James, Appellant V. Employment Security Dept., Respondent (Majority)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED CUE T OF APPEALS DIVISION 11 20Pi SEP 23 r Sim- - A ' TON BY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTO DIVISION II JON C. JAMES, No. 44714 -2 -II Appellant. v. UNPUBLISHED OPINION STATE OF WASHINGTON EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT, Respondent. MELNICK, J. Security Department' Jon James appeals the trial court' s order affirming the Employment Department) denial s( of unemployment benefits. None of the errors he The agency' s findings are supported by substantial facts in the record alleges require reversal. and it correctly applied the law to the facts. We affirm. FACTS James quit his job with a landscaping company. He applied for unemployment benefits. The Department denied James benefits because he voluntarily quit without good cause. James appealed with good cause the denial to for two reasons: heard testimony from both James an administrative illegal and activities on the employer. law judge ( ALJ). He argued that he quit the jobsite and safety concerns. The ALJ James alleged that his employer did not allow employees to take statutorily required breaks and that his employer failed to address safety issues, such as employees riding in the bucket of a bobcat and installing the wrong backflow valve. The employer testified that James never mentioned concerns about safety or 9: 33 breaks 44714 - -II 2 before he quit and that the employer addressed the bobcat and backflow valve issues when they arose. The ALJ found the employer more credible than James. He also found that James did not report his the ALJ concerns about concluded breaks or safety issues to the that James failed to employer show good cause before quitting. for quitting. Accordingly, The ALJ affirmed the Department' s denial of benefits. James appealed ALJ' the decision s to the Department' s commissioner. The commissioner adopted the ALJ' s findings of facts and conclusions of law and entered the following augmented findings of fact: N] one of claimant' s job duties required continuous labor, that is, there was significant down time, ten to fifteen minutes five times a day, to change tools or The employer contends that the landscaping industry is not subject to the tasks. statutory scheduled break requirement because of the nature of the work. The project claimant worked on for the employer was supervised by a general contractor, who notified the employer of safety issues, which the employer The employer was aware that the project was subject to corrected immediately. Occupation Health and Safety Administration rules and strove to abide by them to keep the job. Administrative Record at 148. The commissioner concluded that James failed to establish good cause for quitting because he did not notify the employer of any alleged problems or give the employer reasonable time to correct them. Additionally, the commissioner determined that the safety issues James raised were immediately addressed and the nature of the work provided for adequate breaks. James petitioned for reconsideration. The commissioner denied the petition. James appealed to the superior court. The court reviewed the commissioner' s record and heard argument from the parties. The court upheld the commissioner' s findings of fact and conclusions of law and affirmed the commissioner' s decision. James appeals. 2 44714 -2 -II ANALYSIS The Administrative Procedure Act ( APA), chapter 34. 05 RCW, governs judicial review of the final decision Emp' t Sec. Dep' t, of the Department' s commissioner. 164 Wn.2d 909, 915, RCW 50. 32. 120; Verizon Nw., Inc. v. 194 P. 3d 255 ( 2008). We review de novo the commissioner' s findings and decision, not the superior court' s decision or the underlying ALJ order. Engbrecht v. Emp' t Sec. Dep' t, 132 Wn. App. 423, 427, 132 P. 3d 1099 ( 2006). The commissioner' s decision is prima facie correct and the burden is on the challenging party to which show this otherwise. RCW 50. 32. 150. court can grant relief from an RCW 34. 05. 570( 3) lists the circumstances under agency order. James appears to argue that the order exceeded the agency' s statutory authority, the agency engaged in unlawful procedures, the agency erroneously interpreted the law, and the order is not supported by substantial evidence. RCW 34. 05. 570( 3)( b) -(e). Issues not raised before the agency may not be raised on appeal. RCW 34. 05. 554( 1). First, James argues that the Department erred when it failed to grant him conditional benefits under WAC 192 -120 -050. James did not raise this issue before the agency and he cannot raise it now on appeal. RCW 34. 05. 554( 1). James next argues that the Department erred by, conducting a labor standards investigation and granting a " meal and rest period variance." Appellant' s Br. at 6. There is no evidence in the record that the Department engaged in a labor standards investigation or granted a " variance" regarding meal times and rest periods. The Department' s review was limited to determining whether James qualified for unemployment benefits. 3 44714 -2 -II Next, James of his hearing to the ALJ alleges deficiencies in the agency' was erased and or commissioner. s procedures. that certain " Expert Fact Appellant' s Br. at 7. He contends that the record Finding "1 documents were not disclosed Neither of these issues entitles him to relief. James is correct that there was a problem with the recording of his first hearing before the ALJ. However, he was granted another hearing de novo. Additionally, contrary to James' s assertions, the " Expert Fact Finding" documents were included in the commissioner' s record. The majority of James' s remaining arguments involve challenges to the commissioner' s findings of fact. We review the commissioner' s findings of fact for substantial evidence in light of the whole record. RCW 34. 05. 570( 3)( e); 226 P. 3d 263 ( 2010). " person of findings Substantial evidence is evidence that would persuade a fair minded or correctness of are verities on appeal.. 1993). the matter." Smith, 155 Wn. App. at 32 33. Unchallenged Tapper v. Emp' t Sec. Dep' t, 122 Wn.2d 397, 407, 858 P. 2d 494 We defer to the agency' s judgment regarding witness credibility and the weight of evidence. 2004). the truth Smith v. Emp' t Sec. Dep' t, 155 Wn. App. 24, 32, Affordable Cabs, Inc. v. Emp' t Sec. Dep' t, 124 Wn. App. 361, 367, 101 P. 3d 440 We determine de novo whether the agency correctly applied the law to the factual findings. Affordable Cabs, Inc., 124 Wn. App. at 367. Generally, an employee cannot receive unemployment benefits if he voluntarily quits without good cause. RCW 50. 20. 050( 2)( a). But an employee may still be eligible for benefits if he quit because of illegal activities on the jobsite or because a lack of safety in the workplace. RCW 50. 20. 050( 2)( b)( viii), (ix); WAC 192 -150- 130( 2), - 135( 2). These exceptions require the employee to report his concerns to the employer and allow a reasonable period of time for the 1 These documents include interviews with the employer during the Department' s initial investigation of James' s claim. 4 44714 - -II 2 to employer correct the problem before quitting. RCW 50. 20. 050( 2)( b)( viii), (ix); WAC 192- 150- 130( 2), - 135( 2). James appears to challenge the commissioner' s findings that ( 1) the nature of the work allowed for breaks throughout the day and ( 2) the employer immediately corrected safety issues. These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record. The employer testified that, because of the nature of the work, there are at least five 10 -15 minute breaks throughout the James workday. employer witness had asserts more that these facts are not credibility than James. true. We defer to the commissioner' s judgment regarding Affordable Cabs, Inc., 124 Wn. credibility. But the commissioner determined that the App. at 367. The employer also testified that safety concerns James referenced at the hearing were corrected immediately after they occurred. This evidence is not contradicted in the record. The agency' s findings are supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, even if James had shown that the findings were not supported by substantial evidence, the agency still correctly applied the law to the remaining findings. The commissioner found James did not report his concerns about breaks or safety issues to his employer before RCW quitting. 50. 20. 050( 2)( b)( viii) and ( ix) require that, in order to be eligible for unemployment benefits, the employee must report his concerns to the employer before quitting. James did not do so here. Therefore, the commissioner correctly determined that he did not quit for good cause and he is not entitled to unemployment benefits. 2 Finally, James contends that WAC 192 -150 -130 and 192- 150 -135 are unconstitutional. He does not provide any meaningful argument or citation to authority in support of this 2 James urged both this court and the agency to determine whether his employer in fact violated regulations regarding safety and break times. But this is outside the scope of this case. At all levels, this review was limited to whether the Department properly denied James unemployment benefits. 5 44714 -2 -II contention. Accordingly, we do not address this argument. RAP 10. 3( a)( 6); Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P. 2d 549 ( 1992). We affirm. A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2. 06. 040, it is so ordered. We concur: 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.