Latite Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Unemployment Appeals Commission

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Latite Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Unemployment Appeals Commission

718 So. 2d 400, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12844, 1998 WL 712789

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 14, 1998

DocketNo. 97-3119

StatusPublished

This text of 718 So. 2d 400 (Latite Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Unemployment Appeals Commission) 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

Latite Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 718 So. 2d 400, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12844, 1998 WL 712789 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Latite Roofing & Sheet Metal Company, appeals from the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) order, which reversed the decision of the appeals referee denying unemployment compensation benefits to appellant’s former-employee, Jacques Tellus. We reverse and remand with directions to reinstate the decision of the appeals referee.

The UAC’s standard of review of the appeals referee’s decision is to determine whether the referee’s findings of fact are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. See Maynard v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 609 So.2d 143, 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). “Whether [an] employee left [his] job voluntarily and without good cause is a question of fact within the province of the unemployment appeals referee.” Grossman v. Jewish Community Center, 704 So.2d 714, 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

After reviewing the record in the instant case, we conclude that the finding of the appeals referee that appellant voluntarily quit his employment without good cause attributable to his employer was supported by competent, substantial evidence, and that the UAC erred when it substituted its findings therefor.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., and LABARGA, JOSE, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Latite Roofing & Sheet Metal Company, appeals from the Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) order, which reversed the decision of the appeals referee denying unemployment compensation benefits to appellant’s former-employee, Jacques Tellus. We reverse and remand with directions to reinstate the decision of the appeals referee.

The UAC’s standard of review of the appeals referee’s decision is to determine whether the referee’s findings of fact are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. See Maynard v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 609 So.2d 143, 145 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). “Whether [an] employee left [his] job voluntarily and without good cause is a question of fact within the province of the unemployment appeals referee.” Grossman v. Jewish Community Center, 704 So.2d 714, 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).

After reviewing the record in the instant case, we conclude that the finding of the appeals referee that appellant voluntarily quit his employment without good cause attributable to his employer was supported by competent, substantial evidence, and that the UAC erred when it substituted its findings therefor.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ., and LABARGA, JOSE, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

718 So. 2d 400, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 12844, 1998 WL 712789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latite-roofing-sheet-metal-co-v-unemployment-appeals-commission-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack