Question

Dianne Mathews

was a manager for B and K Foods, Inc., when she was terminated.

She filed for

unemployment compensation but B and K objected. At an employment commission hearing, the

chief executive of B and K testified that it was company policy to pay employees who worked

through their lunch breaks. To be paid, a person turned in a “no lunch” sheet. Mathews, however,

turned in “no lunch” sheets when she ran personal errands. Mathews admitted knowing the policy

and occasionally abusing it. She claimed that a former manager had told her it was okay. The

unemployment commission disqualified her receipt of benefits. She appealed

.

A state intermediate appellate court

affirmed. “‘Work-related misconduct’ must involve a willful

violation of the rules or standards of the employer.” Mathews was familiar with B and K’s policy and

violated it. The court also noted that Mathews was responsible for subordinateDianne Mathews

was a manager for B and K Foods, Inc., when she was terminated.

She filed for

unemployment compensation but B and K objected. At an employment commission hearing, the

chief executive of B and K testified that it was company policy to pay employees who worked

through their lunch breaks. To be paid, a person turned in a “no lunch” sheet. Mathews, however,

turned in “no lunch” sheets when she ran personal errands. Mathews admitted knowing the policy

and occasionally abusing it. She claimed that a former manager had told her it was okay. The

unemployment commission disqualified her receipt of benefits. She appealed

.

A state intermediate appellate court

affirmed. “‘Work-related misconduct’ must involve a willful

violation of the rules or standards of the employer.” Mathews was familiar with B and K’s policy and

violated it. The court also noted that Mathews was responsible for subordinate

Suppose that Mathews had not admitted to knowing about the “no lunch” sheet policy. Would the result in this case have been different? Why or why no

Answer 1

No, even if Mathews had not admitted to knowing about the “no lunch” sheet policy, the result would not have been different. Even without this testimony, B and K have evidences on work-related misconduct wherein Mathew wilfully violated the rules or standards of the employer. B and K could have presented actual sheets of “no lunch” submitted by Mathews on this and other occasions. Thus, this evidence, would have been sufficient to show that Mathews was aware of the policy