Ariz. Admin. Code § R6-3-51485 - Violation of Company Rule (misconduct 485)
A. General (Misconduct 485.05)
1. An employee, discharged for violating a
company rule, generally is considered discharged for misconduct connected with
the work. This principle is based on the theory that when hired, an employee
agrees to abide by the rules of his employer. This section covers rules
peculiar to a particular employer, and not rules constituting the general code
of industrial misconduct. In order for misconduct connected with the work to be
found, it must be determined that the claimant knew "or should have known" of
the rule and that the rule is reasonable and uniformly enforced.
2. Recognition must be accorded to the type
of business in which the employer is engaged and other surrounding
circumstances. The rule must be reasonable in light of public policy and should
not constitute an infringement upon the recognized rights and privileges of
workers as individuals. Rules to affect the employee's conduct outside the
employer's premises and which could not reasonably affect the employer's
interests are generally considered unreasonable.
B. Garnishment, assignment of wages, or
failure to meet financial obligation (Misconduct 485.6)
1. Effective July 1, 1970, the Consumer
Credit Protection Act prohibits an employer from discharging an employee on the
ground that the employee's wages were subjected to garnishment for any one
indebtedness (U.S.C.A. 15-1671, et seq.). A discharge in violation of this law
is not disqualifying.
a. "Garnishment for a
single indebtedness" would include all garnishments taken to collect one debt
and relates only to a garnishment action taken during employment with one
employer.
b. Questions as to
whether continuing or revolving accounts and other similar debt making
processes constitute a single indebtedness should be directed to any office of
the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor, the organization charged
with enforcement of this law.
2. When a worker is separated for a
garnishment on other than a first indebtedness, misconduct may be established
when the worker had received prior warning that discharge might result from
such garnishment and:
a. He incurred the
subsequent indebtedness through nonessential purchases, or
b. He failed to make a reasonable effort to
pay for essential purchases when financially capable or make a reasonable
effort to forestall garnishment on an essential purchase when not financially
able to pay.
C. Motor vehicle (Misconduct 485.65). A
claimant discharged for violating a company rule regarding the operation of a
motor vehicle, is discharged for misconduct connected with the work when it
appears that the violation of the company rule did, or could have reasonably
been expected to, adversely affect the employer's interests. See
R6-3-51490 regarding violation of law in connection with motor vehicles.
D. Safety regulations (Misconduct 485.8). A
worker who is discharged for violation of a safety rule almost always is
determined to be discharged for misconduct connected with the work. It is only
when a rule is petty, unknown to the workers, previously has been unenforced,
or is violated unwittingly that misconduct is not found. In considering cases
involving such situations, the extent of the hazard presented by the violation
of the rule, and the care which the claimant exercised, are to be
considered.
Notes
State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.
No prior version found.