{
  "id": 8526426,
  "name": "In The Matter of: EARL D. COLLINS, JR., Claimant-appellant v. B&G PIE COMPANY, INC., Employer-appellee, and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Collins v. B&G Pie Co.",
  "decision_date": "1982-11-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 8121SC1394",
  "first_page": "341",
  "last_page": "343",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "59 N.C. App. 341"
    }
  ],
  "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": "259 S.E. 2d 805",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 N.C. App. 727",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554408
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/43/0727-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 A.L.R. 3d 674",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "791"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 N.W. 636",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.",
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 Wis. 249",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wis.",
      "case_ids": [
        8680580
      ],
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wis/237/0249-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 S.E. 2d 210",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 N.C. App. 340",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555463
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/17/0340-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 S.E. 2d 357",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "305 N.C. 373",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569932
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/305/0373-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 A.L.R. 3d 1114",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 S.E. 2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 629",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575910
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0629-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 353,
    "char_count": 5221,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.751,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.0851194683774615e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8582566010605251
    },
    "sha256": "7622480a3b47b5341f9a1918a6ed1d7dd9e0f589b848b4e599a5e0c5ee3500ac",
    "simhash": "1:6d25d4f9d587a66b",
    "word_count": 829
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:54.350150+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Webb concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "In The Matter of: EARL D. COLLINS, JR., Claimant-appellant v. B&G PIE COMPANY, INC., Employer-appellee, and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, Appellee"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nThe sole question we address is whether absence from employment in violation of a work rule due to incarceration for a willful or legally unexcused probation violation amounts to \u201cmisconduct\u201d in the context of N.C.G.S. 96-14. We hold that it does.\nG.S. 96-14, in part, provides:\nAn individual shall be disqualified for benefits . . . if it is determined by the Commission that such individual is, at the time such claim is filed, unemployed because he was discharged for misconduct connected with his work.\nIn G.S. 96-2 the General Assembly set out the public policy underlying the Employment Security Law, providing guidance in interpretation of that act. That section provides, in part, that the funds collected under the act are \u201cto be used for the benefit of persons unemployed through no fault of their own.\u201d Citing this section, the Supreme Court in In re Watson, 273 N.C. 629, 161 S.E. 2d 1, 35 A.L.R. 3d 1114 (1968) stated that the act is intended to provide benefits \u201cto one who becomes involuntarily unemployed\u201d and cannot find work \u201cthrough no fault of his own.\u201d\nOur Supreme Court has defined \u201cmisconduct\u201d under the statute to be conduct showing wanton or willful disregard for the employer\u2019s interest, deliberate violation of the employer\u2019s work rules, or a wrongful intent. Intercraft Industries Corp. v. Morrison, 305 N.C. 373, 289 S.E. 2d 357 (1982). While the mere violation of a work rule is not disqualifying misconduct where the evidence shows that the employee\u2019s actions were reasonable and were taken with good cause, Id., citing In re Collingsworth, 17 N.C. App. 340, 194 S.E. 2d 210 (1973), deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior which an employer has a right to expect of his employee, or carelessness or negligence manifesting equal culpability may constitute misconduct in connection with one\u2019s employment sufficient to disqualify the employee to receive unemployment benefits. In re Collingsworth, supra, quoting with approval, Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 296 N.W. 636 (1941). Although the question before us has not been addressed by our courts, the courts of several other states have addressed it, and we find that we are in accord with the majority view. See, Annot., 58 A.L.R. 3d 674, 791.\nIn the present case, claimant\u2019s acts which resulted in his violation of a work rule were without legal excuse. In order to activate his suspended sentence, the court had to believe that claimant was able to pay his debt but did not; a suspended sentence may not be activated for failure to comply with a term of probation unless the defendant\u2019s failure to comply is willful or without lawful excuse. See State v. Smith, 43 N.C. App. 727, 259 S.E. 2d 805 (1979) and cases discussed therein. Claimant\u2019s failure to comply with the conditions of his probation caused him to become incarcerated and claimant missed work in willful disregard of his employer\u2019s work rules. Under these circumstances, claimant\u2019s resulting unemployment was not through no fault of his own.\nWe hold that claimant\u2019s discharge was for misconduct connected with his work, and that claimant was properly denied unemployment compensation.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is\nAffirmed.\nJudges Vaughn and Webb concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WELLS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Legal Aid Society of Northwest North Carolina, Inc., by Thomas A. Harris, for claimant-appellant.",
      "Jack E. Ruby, for employer-appellee.",
      "C. Coleman Billingsley, Jr., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In The Matter of: EARL D. COLLINS, JR., Claimant-appellant v. B&G PIE COMPANY, INC., Employer-appellee, and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, Appellee\nNo. 8121SC1394\n(Filed 2 November 1982)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 108.1 \u2014 absence from employment in violation of work rules \u2014incarceration\u2014misconduct connected with work \u2014 unemployment compensation properly denied\nClaimant was properly denied unemployment compensation where he was discharged for misconduct connected with his work, G.S. 96-14, in that he had more than seven unexcused absences from work within a 180 day period in violation of an employer\u2019s work rule, when he was incarcerated for a willful or legally unexcused probation violation.\nAPPEAL by claimant from Helms, Judge. Judgment entered 3 September 1981 in Superior Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 October 1982.\nClaimant, Earl D. Collins, Jr., sought unemployment compensation benefits after being terminated by his employer, B&G Pie Company, Inc. (B&G). Claimant was discharged from his employment for having more than seven unexcused absences from work within a 180 day period, in violation of a B&G work rule. Claimant was absent from work for two months due to his incarceration which resulted from the activation of a suspended sentence when he violated a condition of his probation. Defendant\u2019s probation violation consisted of his failure to make restitution payments ordered upon his conviction of failure to return rental property. The Employment Security Commission denied benefits to claimant upon a determination that claimant had been fired for misconduct connected with his work. Claimant appealed to the superior court. From judgment of the superior court affirming the decision of the Commission, claimant appealed.\nLegal Aid Society of Northwest North Carolina, Inc., by Thomas A. Harris, for claimant-appellant.\nJack E. Ruby, for employer-appellee.\nC. Coleman Billingsley, Jr., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0341-01",
  "first_page_order": 373,
  "last_page_order": 375
}