Jacobs v. E.R. Jahna Industries, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jacobs v. E.R. Jahna Industries, Inc.

522 So. 2d 1075, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1471, 1988 WL 31740

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 13, 1988

DocketNo. 87-1054

StatusPublished

This text of 522 So. 2d 1075 (Jacobs v. E.R. Jahna Industries, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jacobs v. E.R. Jahna Industries, Inc., 522 So. 2d 1075, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1471, 1988 WL 31740 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

STONE, Judge.

This is an appeal from an agency order denying unemployment benefits. We reverse. The appellant’s employer indicated to the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation that the appellant was discharged for violating the company’s written attendance rules by absences on certain specified dates. Appellant did not receive notice of a substantial change in the scope of the allegations. See Philbin v. Southern Bell [1076]*1076Telephone & Telegraph, 503 So.2d 1375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Although the initial charge was not supported by proof, the appellant was found guilty of misconduct by excessive absenteeism.

Upon a review of the record, we find an absence of substantial competent evidence to support the finding of excessive absenteeism as defined in section 443.036(24), Florida Statutes. Cf. Hartenstein v. Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, 383 So.2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

The order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission is, therefore, set aside and this cause is remanded to the Commission in accordance with section 120.68, Florida Statutes.

ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur.

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

STONE, Judge.

This is an appeal from an agency order denying unemployment benefits. We reverse. The appellant’s employer indicated to the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation that the appellant was discharged for violating the company’s written attendance rules by absences on certain specified dates. Appellant did not receive notice of a substantial change in the scope of the allegations. See Philbin v. Southern Bell [1076]*1076Telephone & Telegraph, 503 So.2d 1375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Although the initial charge was not supported by proof, the appellant was found guilty of misconduct by excessive absenteeism.

Upon a review of the record, we find an absence of substantial competent evidence to support the finding of excessive absenteeism as defined in section 443.036(24), Florida Statutes. Cf. Hartenstein v. Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security, 383 So.2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

The order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission is, therefore, set aside and this cause is remanded to the Commission in accordance with section 120.68, Florida Statutes.

ANSTEAD and DELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 So. 2d 1075, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 1471, 1988 WL 31740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobs-v-er-jahna-industries-inc-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack