Opinion
No. 72-004
Decided October 31, 1972.
Following his involuntary separation from employment, claimant sought unemployment compensation. From denial of benefits, claimant appealed.
Order Affirmed
1. SOCIAL SECURITY AND PUBLIC WELFARE — Off-Duty Employees — Presence in Nightclub — Policy Reasonable — Violation — Unemployment Benefits — Properly Denied. Since there was a definite relationship between nightclub owner's primary business and his policy that off-duty employees be permitted in the nightclub when it is not crowded but that they must leave to make room for regular paying customers under crowded conditions, employees' violation of this policy was properly held to be conduct which prevented him from receiving unemployment benefits.
Review of Order from the Industrial Commission of the State of Colorado
Vernon J. Playton, for petitioner.
Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, John P. Moore, Deputy, Robert L. Harris, Assistant, for respondents.
Nick J. Radis was involuntarily separated from his employment as a janitor with Red Onion, Incorporated. Radis made a claim for unemployment benefits which was denied by the Industrial Commission. Finding no valid assertion of error contained in Radis' appeal, we affirm.
The Commission and its hearing officers made specific evidentiary findings from which were determined the ultimate factual conclusions resulting in the "no award" finding. Despite the brevity of these findings and conclusions, they were satisfactory for a proper review by this court. Tague v. Coors Porcelain Co., 29 Colo. App. 226, 481 P.2d 424. Examination of the record has convinced us that the findings of the Commission are supported by competent evidence, and they therefore will not be disturbed. Industrial Commission v. Bennett, 166 Colo. 101, 441 P.2d 648.
The Commission found, on competent evidence, that the employer had an established policy whereby it permitted its employees to be in the employer's nightclub when the club was not crowded. On the night of the incident in question, claimant, along with six to eight other employees, was asked to leave the nightclub because of crowded conditions. Other employees left but claimant refused to leave and was forcibly ejected from the premises. The incident caused the employer to terminate claimant's employment. Applying 1965 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 82-4-8(6)(b)(viii), the Commission concluded that claimant should receive no award because, in the language of the statute, he had deliberately disobeyed "a reasonable instruction of an employer or his duly authorized representative."
[1] Claimant's challenge to the decision of the Commission is based on the alleged inapplicability of the statute to an incident occurring when claimant was involved in an activity not directly related to his work. However, there is a definite relationship between the employer's primary business and the employment policy in question. It is of direct economic concern to the employer that he accommodate as many customers as possible, and for this purpose it is reasonable the he request employees to leave when they are occupying space which might be utilized by regular paying customers. See Gregory v. Anderson, 14 Wis.2d 130, 109 N.W.2d 675. Hence, a violation of this policy was properly held to be conduct which prevented claimant from receiving unemployment benefits.
We affirm.
CHIEF JUDGE SILVERSTEIN and JUDGE COYTE concur.