{ "id": 8569932, "name": "INTERCRAFT INDUSTRIES CORP. v. KAREN M. MORRISON and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA", "name_abbreviation": "Intercraft Industries Corp. v. Morrison", "decision_date": "1982-03-30", "docket_number": "No. 154A81", "first_page": "373", "last_page": "377", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "305 N.C. 373" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "54 N.C. App. 225", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521399 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/54/0225-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 S.E. 2d 245", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 598", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575710 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0598-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 S.E. 2d 403", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "231 N.C. 381", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629916 ], "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/231/0381-01" ] }, { "cite": "135 S.E. 2d 27", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "261 N.C. 450", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573992 ], "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/261/0450-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 A. 2d 171", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1954, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "173" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "175 Pa. Super. 261", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa. Super.", "case_ids": [ 720694 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1954, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "264" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa-super/175/0261-01" ] }, { "cite": "266 S.E. 2d 854", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "47 N.C. App. 163", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548628 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/47/0163-01" ] }, { "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" ] }, { "cite": "296 N.W. 636", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "357 A. 2d 239", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 Pa. Commw. Ct. 51", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa. Commw.", "case_ids": [ 1880887 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa-commw/30/0051-01" ] }, { "cite": "388 A. 2d 801", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "37 Pa. Commw. Ct. 9", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa. Commw.", "case_ids": [ 1890242 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa-commw/37/0009-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 A.L.R. 2d 1158", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "58 A.L.R. 3d 674", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "weight": 2, "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "26 A.L.R. 3d 1356", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "8 N.W. 2d 286", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "128 A. 2d 20", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "43 N.J. Super. 172", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J. Super.", "case_ids": [ 383525 ], "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nj-super/43/0172-01" ] }, { "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": "54 N.C. App. 225", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521399 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/54/0225-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 535, "char_count": 10095, "ocr_confidence": 0.806, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.363051769088081e-06, "percentile": 0.9902388131508826 }, "sha256": "5ad455b91a5a6c62845182d2b08a9fcc17fbf37f4566e5da4a8cda5d2b8f6d11", "simhash": "1:68e422cc16a216fe", "word_count": 1628 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:52:50.465071+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Justices COPELAND and Meyer join in this dissenting opinion." ], "parties": [ "INTERCRAFT INDUSTRIES CORP. v. KAREN M. MORRISON and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRANCH, Chief Justice.\nThe question presented by this appeal is whether claimant\u2019s unexcused absence from work on 16 February 1980, which violated her employer\u2019s rule and which was due to her inability to secure child care, constituted \u201cmisconduct\u201d connected with her work so as to disqualify her for unemployment compensation benefits.\nG.S. 96-14(2), 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.\nThis Court has not defined \u201cmisconduct\u201d in the context of the statute. However, the rule recognized by our Court of Appeals and the majority of the courts of other jurisdictions is that misconduct sufficient \u2022 to disqualify a discharged employee from receiving unemployment compensation is conduct which shows a wanton or wilful disregard for the employer\u2019s interest, a deliberate violation of the employer\u2019s rules, or a wrongful intent. See In re Collingsworth, 17 N.C. App. 340, 194 S.E. 2d 210 (1973), and cases there cited, 76 Am. Jur. 2d, Unemployment Compensation \u00a7 52 (1975); Beaunit Mills, Inc. v. Division of Employment Security, 43 N.J. Super. 172, 128 A. 2d 20 (1956); Checker Cab Co. v. Industrial Comm., 242 Wisc. 429, 8 N.W. 2d 286 (1943). See also Annot., Unemployment Compensation - Misconduct, 26 A.L.R. 3d 1356, \u00a7 3 at 1359 (1969). We adopt this majority rule.\nThe obvious reasons for such a rule are to prevent benefits of the statute from going to persons who cause their unemployment by such callous, wanton, and deliberate misbehavior as would reasonably justify their discharge by an employer, and to prevent the dissipation of employment funds by persons engaged in such disqualifying acts.\nOur research discloses that it is generally recognized that chronic or persistent absenteeism, in the face of warnings, and without good cause may constitute wilful misconduct. See Annot., Unemployment Compensation - Absenteeism, 58 A.L.R. 3d 674, \u00a73 at p. 685 (1974); Annot., Unemployment Compensation -Absences, 41 A.L.R. 2d 1158, \u00a7 3 at p. 1160 (1955). However, a violation of a work rule is not wilful misconduct if the evidence shows that the employee\u2019s actions were reasonable and were taken with good cause. In re Collingsworth, supra; Kindrew v. Unemployment Comp. Bd., 37 Pa. Commw. Ct. 9, 388 A. 2d 801 (1978); Unemployment Comp. Bd. v. Iacano, 30 Pa. Commw. Ct. 51, 357 A. 2d 239 (1976); Boynton Cab. Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wisc. 249, 296 N.W. 636 (1941). This Court has defined a \u201cgood cause\u201d to be a reason which would be deemed by reasonable men and women valid and not indicative of an unwillingness to work. In re Watson, 273 N.C. 629, 161 S.E. 2d 1 (1968); see also, In re Clark, 47 N.C. App. 163, 266 S.E. 2d 854 (1980).\nOrdinarily a claimant is presumed to be entitled to benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Act, but this is a rebut-table presumption with the burden on the employer to show circumstances which disqualify the claimant. Kelleher Unemployment Comp. Case, 175 Pa. Super. 261, 104 A. 2d 171 (1954). See also Annot., Unemployment Compensation - Absenteeism, 58 A.L.R. 3d 674 (1974). We note in passing that the employer did not except to or attack the statement of the Commission in its decision that the employer had the responsibility to show that a claimant for benefits was discharged for misconduct within the meaning of the law.\nG.S. 150A-1 exempts the Employment Security Commission from the provisions of Chapter 150A, the Administrative Procedure Act. However, our case law recognizes that an appeal from an administrative decision constitutes an exception to the judgment and presents the question whether the facts found are sufficient to support the judgment, ie., whether the court correctly applied the law to the facts found. In re Burris, 261 N.C. 450, 135 S.E. 2d 27 (1964). In considering an appeal from a decision of the Employment Security Commission, the reviewing court must (1) determine whether there was evidence before the Commission to support its findings of fact and (2) decide whether the facts found sustain the Commission\u2019s conclusions of law and its resulting decision. Employment Security Comm. v. Jarrell, 231 N.C. 381, 57 S.E. 2d 403 (1950).\nOn the question of \u201cgood cause\u201d for claimant\u2019s unexcused absence on 16 February 1980, the record discloses a showing by claimant that she \u201cjust couldn\u2019t find child care\u201d on that date. This evidence was sufficient to permit, but not require, the Commission to find that claimant\u2019s unexcused absence was for good cause. Kelleher Unemployment Comp. Case, 175 Pa. Super, at 264, 104 A. 2d at 173.\nWe wish to make it clear that it is our opinion that, depending on circumstances disclosed by the evidence, the lack of child care may or may not be \u201cgood cause\u201d for an unexcused absence from work. This is a matter for the factfinder, here the Commission, to decide.\nIn instant case, the claimant offered uncontroverted evidence tending to show good cause. Employer, who had the burden of showing claimant to be disqualified to recieve benefits under the Act, offered nothing to refute claimant\u2019s showing. Thus, there was competent evidence to support the Commission\u2019s findings favorable to claimant, and these findings are conclusive on appeal. In re Thomas, 281 N.C. 598, 189 S.E. 2d 245 (1972). We are of the opinion that the findings, though sparse, support the Commission\u2019s conclusions of law and the conclusions of law sustained the Commission\u2019s decision. We note parenthetically that had employer offered any evidence to negate claimant\u2019s evidence of \u201cgood cause\u201d the Commission should have made a specific finding as to whether \u201cgood cause\u201d existed.\nFor the reasons stated, the decision of the Court of Appeals is\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "BRANCH, Chief Justice." }, { "text": "Justice Carlton\ndissenting.\nI respectfully dissent from the majority opinion for the same reasons given by Judge Hedrick in his dissent in the Court of Appeals\u2019 opinion. 54 N.C. App. 225, \u2014 S.E. 2d \u2014 (1981).\nJustices COPELAND and Meyer join in this dissenting opinion.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Justice Carlton" } ], "attorneys": [ "Pope, McMillian, Gourley & Kutteh, by William H. McMillian, for plaintiff.", "Employment Security Commission of North Carolina, by T. S. Whitaker, Acting Chief Counsel, V Henry Gransee, Jr., Staff Attorney, and Thelma M. Hill, Staff Attorney, for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "INTERCRAFT INDUSTRIES CORP. v. KAREN M. MORRISON and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA\nNo. 154A81\n(Filed 30 March 1982)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 108.1\u2014 unemployment compensation \u2014absence caused by failure to find child care not \u201cwillful misconduct\u201d\nIn an action concerning unemployment compensation benefits, the evidence was sufficient to permit the Commission to find that claimant\u2019s unexcused absence because she \u201cjust couldn\u2019t find child care\u201d was for good cause and did not constitute \u201cmisconduct\u201d connected with her work so as to disqualify her for unemployment compensation benefits. G.S. 96-14(2).\nJustice Carlton dissenting.\nJustices Copeland and Meyer join in this dissenting opinion.\nAPPEAL by plaintiff employer pursuant to G.S. 7A-30(2) from the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals (Whichard, J., with Hill, J., concurring and Hedrick, J., dissenting) reported at 54 N.C. App. 225, \u2014 S.E. 2d \u2014 (1981), affirming a judgment by Lee, J., at the 8 September 1980 Session of WAKE County Superior Court which affirmed a decision by defendant Employment Security Commission that defendant employee, claimant Karen M. Morrison, was not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.\nTestimony and evidence taken by an Employment Security Commission Appeals Referee on 15 April 1980 tended to show that the employer\u2019s absentee policy, of which the claimant was advised, permitted a maximum of six days of unexcused absence within a twelve month period and that a total of ten days of unexcused absences would result in termination of employment. Claimant was hired by employer on 4 September 1979.\nOn 22 January 1980, claimant was informed by written notice that if she incurred one more unexcused absence in the next thirty days she would be subject to further discipline. On 15 February 1980, claimant was advised by written notification that her absence on 7 February 1980 was unexcused and that another unexcused absence within thirty days would result in job termination. On Saturday, 16 February 1980, claimant was absent from \u201cmandatory overtime\u201d work of which she had notice. Claimant notified the employer that she could not work that day because she couldn\u2019t find child care, and she testified at the hearing that \u201cI couldn\u2019t work on Saturday because I didn\u2019t have a babysitter and that was the only reason.\u201d She admitted that most of her absences were from Saturday work.\nThe Commission made three findings of fact, to-wit:\n1. Claimant last worked for Intercraft Industries on February 18, 1980. From February 17, 1980 until February 23, 1980, claimant has registered for work and continued to report to an employment office of the Commission and has made a claim for benefits in accordance with G.S. 9645(a).\n2. Claimant was discharged from this job for being absent on February 16, 1980, a scheduled day of overtime work. She was absent because she had no child care that day. The absence was not excused.\n3. The claimant had been warned, and was aware, that ten (10) unexcused absences within a twelve-month period would result in her discharge. The absence on February 16, 1980, was her tenth unexcused absence.\nThe Commission then concluded that \u201cthe employer has the responsibility to show that a claimant for benefits was discharged for misconduct within the meaning of the law\u201d and that the employer failed to show that the employee was disqualified for benefits \u201cbecause the evidence fails to show that claimant was discharged from the job for misconduct connected with the work.\u201d\nThe Wake County Superior Court judgment affirmed the Commission\u2019s decision in its entirety based upon a review of the competent evidence contained in the record.\nPope, McMillian, Gourley & Kutteh, by William H. McMillian, for plaintiff.\nEmployment Security Commission of North Carolina, by T. S. Whitaker, Acting Chief Counsel, V Henry Gransee, Jr., Staff Attorney, and Thelma M. Hill, Staff Attorney, for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0373-01", "first_page_order": 405, "last_page_order": 409 }