Summary
holding that employee discharged for refusal, contrary to the direct orders of his supervisor, to operate a forklift which was a part of his job assignment, was discharged for misconduct connected with work and ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits
Summary of this case from Elec. Contr. v. Unemp. Appeals Com'nOpinion
No. 3D04-96.
December 8, 2004.
An Appeal from the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission.
John G. Givens, in proper person.
Louis A. Gutierrez (Tallahassee), for Unemployment Appeals Commission.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and COPE and GREEN, JJ.
The appellant was denied unemployment compensation benefits on the basis of the finding below that he had been discharged for misconduct, section 443.036(29), Florida Statutes (2004), because he obdurately refused, contrary to the direct orders of his supervisor, to operate a forklift which was a part of his job assignment. We affirm. See Citrus Central v. Detwiler, 368 So.2d 81, 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) ("We rule that flagrant and intentional disobedience to a valid work order by a superior on the job should indeed be characterized as misconduct on the job. . . ."); Boyd v. Ikon Office Solutions, Inc., 743 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Kraft, Inc. v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 478 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Hines v. Department of Labor and Employment Sec., 455 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).