Opinion
Case No. 20060587-CA.
Filed October 19, 2006.
Appeal from the Original Proceeding in this Court.
Mina L. Barron, American Fork, Petitioner Pro Se.
Suzan Pixton, Salt Lake City, for Respondents.
Before Judges Bench, Billings, and McHugh.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Mina L. Barron petitions for review of the Workforce Appeals Board's (Board) decision affirming the denial of unemployment benefits. This is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based on the lack of a substantial question for review.
The Board determined that Barron had quit her employment without good cause. Voluntarily leaving employment without good cause makes a claimant ineligible for unemployment benefits.See Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-405(1)(a) (2005). "To establish good cause, a claimant must show that continuing employment would have caused an adverse effect which the claimant could not control or prevent. The claimant must show an immediate severance of the employment relationship was necessary." Utah Admin. Code R994-405-102. Additionally, even if an adverse effect is shown, good cause may not be found if the claimant did not notify the employer of the circumstances or conditions causing the effect and give the employer a chance to correct the condition and avoid the need to quit. See id. R994-405-102(1)(b)(iii).
Whether "good cause" for quitting exists is a mixed question of law and fact. See Adams v. Board of Review, 776 P.2d 639, 642 (Utah Ct.App. 1989). This court "will not disturb the Board's application of law to its factual findings unless its determination exceeds the bounds of reasonableness and rationality." Johnson v. Department of Employment Sec., 782 P.2d 965, 968 (Utah Ct.App. 1989).
Here, Barron experienced an unnecessary and inappropriate outburst from her supervisor. However, on its own, this isolated incident did not establish that continuing employment after the incident would cause an adverse effect or that immediately quitting was necessary. In fact, Barron agreed to work with the supervisor again. Additionally, Barron did not notify her employer of the incident and, thus, did not give the employer a chance to address the conduct and assure a proper outcome. Under these circumstances, the Board's determination was not beyond the bounds of reasonableness and rationality.
Accordingly, the Board's decision is affirmed.
Russell W. Bench, Presiding Judge, Judith M. Billings, Judge, and Carolyn B. McHugh, Judge.