In the following examples, the basic elements of just cause
must be considered in determining eligibility for benefits.
(1) Violation of Company Rules.
If a claimant violates a reasonable employment rule and just
cause is established, benefits will be denied.
(a) An employer has the prerogative to
establish and enforce work rules that further legitimate business interests.
However, rules contrary to general public policy or that infringe upon the
recognized rights and privileges of individuals may not be reasonable. If a
claimant believes a rule is unreasonable, the claimant generally has the
responsibility to discuss these concerns with the employer before engaging in
conduct contrary to the rule, thereby giving the employer an opportunity to
address those concerns. When rules are changed, the employer must provide
appropriate notice and afford workers a reasonable opportunity to
comply.
(b) If an employment
relationship is governed by a formal employment contract or collective
bargaining agreement, just cause may only be established if the discharge is
consistent with the provisions of the contract.
(c) Habitual offenses may not constitute
disqualifying conduct if the acts were condoned by the employer or were so
prevalent as to be customary. However, if a claimant was given notice the
conduct would no longer be tolerated, further violations may result in a denial
of benefits.
(d) Culpability may be
established if the violation of the rule did not, in and of itself, cause harm
to the employer, but the lack of compliance diminished the employer's ability
to maintain necessary discipline.
(e) Serious violations of universal standards
of conduct do not require prior warning to support a
disqualification.
(2)
Attendance Violations.
(a) Attendance
standards are usually necessary to maintain order, control, and productivity.
It is the responsibility of a claimant to be punctual and remain at work within
the reasonable requirements of the employer. A discharge for unjustified
absence or tardiness is disqualifying if the claimant knew enforced attendance
rules were being violated. A discharge for an attendance violation beyond the
claimant's control is generally not disqualifying unless the claimant could
reasonably have given notice or obtained permission consistent with the
employer's rules, but failed to do so.
(b) In cases of discharge for violations of
attendance standards, the claimant's recent attendance history must be reviewed
to determine if the violation is an isolated incident, or if it demonstrates a
pattern of unjustified absence within the claimant's control. The flagrant
misuse of attendance privileges may result in a denial of benefits even if the
last incident is beyond the claimant's control.
(3) Falsification of Work Record.
The duty of honesty is inherent in any employment
relationship. An employee or potential employee has an obligation to truthfully
answer material questions posed by the employer or potential employer. For
purposes of this subsection, material questions are those that may expose the
employer to possible loss, damage or litigation if answered falsely. If false
statements were made as part of the application process, benefits may be denied
regardless of whether the claimant would have been hired if all questions were
answered truthfully.
(4)
Insubordination.
An employer generally has the right to expect lines of
authority will be followed; reasonable instructions, given in a civil manner,
will be obeyed; supervisors will be respected and their authority will not be
undermined. In determining when insubordination becomes disqualifying conduct,
a disregard of the employer's rightful and legitimate interests is of major
importance. Protesting or expressing general dissatisfaction without an overt
act is not a disregard of the employer's interests. However, provocative
remarks to a superior or vulgar or profane language in response to a civil
request may constitute insubordination if it disrupts routine, undermines
authority or impairs efficiency. Mere incompatibility or emphatic insistence or
discussion by a claimant, acting in good faith, is not disqualifying
conduct.
(5) Loss of
License.
If the discharge is due to the loss of a required license and
the claimant had control over the circumstances that resulted in the loss, the
conduct is generally disqualifying. Harm is established as the employer would
generally be exposed to an unacceptable degree of risk by allowing an employee
to continue to work without a required license. In the example of a lost
driving privilege due to driving under the influence (DUI), knowledge is
established as it is understood by members of the driving public that driving
under the influence of alcohol is a violation of the law and may be punishable
by the loss of driving privileges. Control is established as the claimant made
a decision to risk the loss of his or her license by failing to make other
arrangements for transportation.
(6) Incarceration.
When a claimant engages in illegal activities, it must be
recognized that the possibility of arrest and detention for some period of time
exists. It is foreseeable that incarceration will result in absence from work
and possible loss of employment. Generally, a discharge for failure to report
to work because of incarceration due to proven or admitted criminal conduct is
disqualifying.
(7) Abuse of
Drugs and Alcohol.
(a) The Legislature, under
the Utah Drug and Alcohol Testing Act, Section
34-38-1 et seq., has determined
the illegal use of drugs and abuse of alcohol creates an unsafe and
unproductive workplace. In balancing the interests of employees, employers and
the welfare of the general public, the Legislature has determined the fair and
equitable testing for drug and alcohol use is a reasonable employment
policy.
(b) An employer can
establish a prima facie case of ineligibility for benefits under the Employment
Security Act based on testing conducted under the Drug and Alcohol Testing Act
by providing the following information:
(i) A
written policy on drug or alcohol testing consistent with the requirements of
the Drug and Alcohol Testing Act and that was in place at the time the
violation occurred.
(ii) Reasonable
proof and description of the method for communicating the policy to all
employees, including a statement that violation of the policy may result in
discharge.
(iii) Proof of testing
procedures used which would include:
(A)
Documentation of sample collection, storage and transportation
procedures.
(B) Documentation that
the results of any screening test for drugs and alcohol were verified or
confirmed by reliable testing methods.
(C) A copy of the verified or confirmed
positive drug or alcohol test report.
(c) The above documentation shall be
admissible as competent evidence under various exceptions to the hearsay rule,
including Rule 803(6) of the Utah Rules of Evidence respecting "records of
regularly conducted activity," unless determined otherwise by a court of
law.
(d) A positive alcohol test
result shall be considered disqualifying if it shows a blood or breath alcohol
concentration of 0.08 grams or greater per 100 milliliters of blood or 210
liters of breath. A blood or breath alcohol concentration of less than 0.08
grams may also be disqualifying if the claimant worked in an occupation
governed by a state or federal law that allowed or required discharge at a
lower standard.
(e) Proof of a
verified or confirmed positive drug or alcohol test result or refusal to
provide a proper test sample is a violation of a reasonable employer rule. The
claimant may be disqualified from the receipt of benefits if his or her
separation was consistent with the employer's written drug and alcohol
policy.
(f) In addition to the drug
and alcohol testing provisions above, ineligibility for benefits under the
Employment Security Act may be established through the introduction of other
competent evidence.
