Henson v. Employment Division

723 P.2d 1081, 81 Or. App. 29
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided August 27, 1986·No. 86-AB-204; CA A39168·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Petitioner seeks judicial review of an Employment Appeals Board order disqualifying him from receiving unemployment benefits because he was discharged for misconduct. ORS 657.176(2); OAR 471-30-038(3).

The referee concluded that petitioner had violated employer’s written policy by leaving work without first notifying his supervisor. However, the referee also concluded that the violation was not wilful and that petitioner’s misconduct was “an isolated instance of poor judgment” and, thus, was not misconduct for the purpose of denying benefits.

On review, the Board concluded that petitioner had wilfully violated employer’s written policy, and it set aside the referee’s order. However, the Board failed to address the referee’s conclusion that petitioner’s misconduct was an isolated instance of poor judgment. That was error. See Hillcrest Vineyard v. Bd. of Comm. Douglas Co., 45 Or App 285, 608 P2d 201 (1980).

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Henson v. Employment Division, 723 P.2d 1081, 81 Or. App. 29 (Or. Ct. App. 1986).

723 P.2d 1081 (Henson v. Employment Division) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hillcrest Vineyard v. BD. OF COM'RS OF DOUGLAS
608 P.2d 201 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1980)