{ "id": 8413987, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL GRAVES, Petitioner v. CULP, INCORPORATED, and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents", "name_abbreviation": "Graves v. Culp, Inc.", "decision_date": "2004-11-02", "docket_number": "No. COA03-1309", "first_page": "748", "last_page": "751", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "166 N.C. App. 748" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "291 S.E.2d 308", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "309" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "57 N.C. App. 363", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524502 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "364" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/57/0363-01" ] }, { "cite": "388 S.E.2d 145", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "148" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "97 N.C. App. 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520423 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "277" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/97/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "389 S.E.2d 434", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "436" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "97 N.C. App. 636", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8522668 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "640" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/97/0636-01" ] }, { "cite": "435 S.E.2d 334", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "334 N.C. 620", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2529281, 2531017, 2528683, 2530067, 2528887 ], "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/334/0620-01", "/nc/334/0620-05", "/nc/334/0620-03", "/nc/334/0620-02", "/nc/334/0620-04" ] }, { "cite": "431 S.E.2d 772", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "775" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 N.C. App. 796", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526519 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "801" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/110/0796-01" ] }, { "cite": "243 S.E.2d 388", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "389-90" }, { "page": "390" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "36 N.C. App. 255", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552718 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "256" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/36/0255-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 96-15", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 3, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(i)" }, { "page": "(h)" }, { "page": "(h)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 405, "char_count": 7844, "ocr_confidence": 0.726, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0237647431604804e-07, "percentile": 0.745739423418122 }, "sha256": "6a5c9a6bf0f3486dddea5ab4a2117e93c60fcd1b3df1c4481f3b872875e4100b", "simhash": "1:cdd29563ead7bceb", "word_count": 1233 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:02:59.875915+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WYNN and McGEE concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL GRAVES, Petitioner v. CULP, INCORPORATED, and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Chief Judge.\nRespondent-appellant Employment Security Commission of North Carolina (ESC) appeals from an order of the Alamance County Superior Court setting aside ESC\u2019s disqualification of petitioner-appellee from receiving unemployment insurance benefits and remanding the matter to the ESC.\nOn 19 May 2002, petitioner-appellee Michael Graves filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits upon being terminated from his job. The matter was referred to an adjudicator who issued a determination that petitioner-appellee was discharged for misconduct connected with work and thus, was disqualified from receiving benefits pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 96-14(2). The matter was appealed to an appeals referee who made the following findings of fact pertinent to this appeal:\n2. Claimant was discharged from this job for refusing to work overtime.\n3. Claimant worked for the employer upholstery manufacturer as a laborer from August 3, 1989 until his discharge on May 13, 2002. Claimant was discharged because he failed to report to work when scheduled for three days without explanation. Those days were March 1, 9 and May 14, 2002.\n4. During peak production times employees were scheduled for 12-hour work shifts as needed. Employees expected to report to work early [sic] than normal were informed of this in advance. Claimant refused to work the overtime. Claimant was allowed to have another employee take claimant\u2019s place. Claimant did this a number of times. The replacements always informed management when they were scheduled to work instead of claimant. Neither of the replacements promised to work on the dates in question.\n5. When claimant could not get someone to take his place claimant informed the employer that claimant would be there when \u201che was supposed to be there.\u201d The employer took this to mean as scheduled but claimant meant for his regular hours.\n6. Claimant was informed that his continued failure to report to work would result in his discharge. Claimant believed that the employer did not have the legal right to require him to work overtime.\nBased on these findings, the appeals referee agreed with the adjudicator that petitioner-appellee was disqualified from receiving benefits pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 96-14(2) due to his refusal to work overtime. On 27 November 2002, the ESC, by and through its Chairman, adopted the findings of the appeals referee (with one minor spelling modification) and affirmed her decision. Petitioner-appellee appealed the ESC\u2019s decision to the superior court.\nOn 30 June 2003, the superior court issued an order finding, inter alia, (1) that petitioner-appellee was deprived of due process because the ESC failed to comply with its own procedures and regulations regarding the gathering of evidence and the building of a record on appeal, (2) that the ESC\u2019s findings of fact were in part based on testimony, or omitted evidence, that was either intentionally or negligently false or misleading, (3) that, as a matter of law, the record does not establish that petitioner-appellee engaged in misconduct, and (4) that the record is insufficient to enable the court to finally determine the rights of the parties. The superior court ordered petitioner-appellee\u2019s disqualification from receiving unemployment benefits to be set aside, along with all findings of fact associated with the disqualification, and remanded the matter to the ESC for reprocessing of the petitioner-appellee\u2019s claim from initiation in accordance with ESC procedures and regulations.\nThe ESC argues the superior court erred by utilizing an incorrect standard of review. We agree. When reviewing an ESC decision, \u201cthe findings of fact by the Commission, if there is any competent evidence to support them and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of the court shall be confined to questions of law.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 96-15(i) (2003). The superior court should first determine if the Commission\u2019s findings of facts are supported by competent evidence and if those facts sustain the Commission\u2019s conclusions of law. In re Enoch, 36 N.C. App. 255, 256, 243 S.E.2d 388, 389-90 (1978). \u201cIf the court properly confines its review to those two questions, there is no reason to conduct an evidentiary hearing.\u201d Id. at 257, 243 S.E.2d at 390. The trial court may only \u201caffirm the Commission\u2019s dismissal of the appeal or remand the case for consideration of the substantive issues by the Commission.\u201d Gilliam v. Employment Security Comm. of N.C., 110 N.C. App. 796, 801, 431 S.E.2d 772, 775 (1993), disc. review denied, 334 N.C. 620, 435 S.E.2d 334 (1993). The Commission will be upheld if there is any competent evidence to support its findings. Celis v. Employment Security Comm., 97 N.C. App. 636, 640, 389 S.E.2d 434, 436 (1990).\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 96-15(h) requires that \u201c[t]he petition for review shall explicitly state what exceptions are taken to the decision or procedure of the Commission.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 96-15(h) (2003). Nadeau v. Employment Security Commission, 97 N.C. App. 272, 277, 388 S.E.2d 145, 148 (1990); In re Hagan v. Peden Steel Co., 57 N.C. App. 363, 364, 291 S.E.2d 308, 309 (1982).\nIn the present case, the trial court received evidence, made findings concerning the completeness of the record and inadequacy of the ESC procedures, and concluded that procedural omissions by the ESC violated claimant\u2019s due process rights and that the ESC\u2019s findings of fact were supported by negligently false or misleading testimony. However, claimant made no exceptions to the ESC\u2019s findings in his petition for review nor did he allege any fraud or procedural irregularity. Therefore, claimant did not preserve those issues for review by the superior court and the court lacked jurisdiction to address them. Its order setting aside the ESC\u2019s decision must be vacated and this cause remanded to the superior court for review utilizing the correct standard of review.\nVacated and remanded.\nJudges WYNN and McGEE concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "No brief filed by petitioner-appellee.", "Deputy Chief Counsel Charles E. Monteith, Jr., for respondent-appellant Employment Security Commission of North Carolina.", "No brief filed by employer-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL GRAVES, Petitioner v. CULP, INCORPORATED, and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents\nNo. COA03-1309\n(Filed 2 November 2004)\nUnemployment Compensation\u2014 disqualification from unemployment benefits \u2014 improper standard of review\nThe trial court erred by using an improper standard of review when it set aside respondent Employment Security Commission\u2019s (ESC) disqualification of petitioner-appellee from receiving unemployment insurance benefits based on petitioner\u2019s refusal to work overtime, because: (1) the superior court should first determine if ESC\u2019s findings of fact are supported by competent evidence and if those findings sustain ESC\u2019s conclusions of law, without any need to conduct an evidentiary hearing, and the trial court may only affirm ESC\u2019s dismissal of the appeal or remand the case for consideration of the substantive issues by ESC; (2) in the instant case, the trial court received evidence, made findings concerning the completeness of the record and inadequacy of ESC procedures, and concluded that procedural omissions by ESC violated claimant\u2019s due process rights and that ESC\u2019s findings of fact were supported by negligently false or misleading testimony; and (3) claimant made no exceptions to the ESC\u2019s findings in his petition for review, nor did he allege any fraud or procedural irregularity, and thus, claimant did not preserve those issues for review by the superior court meaning the court lacked jurisdiction to address them.\nAppeal by respondent from order entered 1 July 2003 by Judge Wade Barber in Alamance County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 September 2004.\nNo brief filed by petitioner-appellee.\nDeputy Chief Counsel Charles E. Monteith, Jr., for respondent-appellant Employment Security Commission of North Carolina.\nNo brief filed by employer-appellant." }, "file_name": "0748-01", "first_page_order": 778, "last_page_order": 781 }