Opinion
Nov. 14, 1972.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Robert L. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent Industrial Comm.
Russell Olin, Legal Service, Public County Pueblo, for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent Corkish Flaks Cigar Co.
Page 363
SILVERSTEIN, Chief Judge.
Petitioner Rosanna Sisneros was discharged by her employer, Corkish Flaks Cigar Co. Thereafter, she filed a claim for unemployment compensation which was denied by a deputy of the Division of Employment. Petitioner appealed from that ruling. After a hearing, the referee found that claimant was discharged because of her frequent tardiness in reporting for work and was entitled to no award of benefits. On appeal, the Industrial Commission adopted the referee's findings of fact and affirmed the award of no benefits under 1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 82--4--8(7). This petition for review followed. We affirm.
Claimant contends that the referee's findings of fact, as adopted by the Commission, are not supported by substantial evidence. Claimant further maintains that the Commission did not make adequate findings to meet the requirements of 1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 82--4--8(7)(b)(i) et seq.
At the hearing, uncontradicted testimony established that claimant had been late for work on twenty-four of the seventy days preceding her discharge. The evidence amply supports the Commission's findings in that regard. Therefore, the findings will not be disturbed on review. Morrison Road Bar v. Industrial Commission, 138 Colo. 16, 328 P.2d 1076; Gatewood v. Russell, 29 Colo.App. 11, 478 P.2d 679.
Claimant next asserts that the findings of the referee, adopted by the Commission, are inadequate because they do not refer specifically to the items listed in 1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 82--4--8(7)(b)(i) through (xi) which were to be considered in determining eligibility for an award under this section. However specific reference to these items is not necessary. The test of the adequacy of Commission findings was set forth in Womack v. Industrial Commission, 168 Colo. 364, 451 P.2d 761, wherein it is stated, 'It is the duty of the commission to make sufficiently detailed findings of fact so that the courts can determine whether the order or award is supported by the facts.' The findings in the present case fully comply with that requirement.
Order affirmed.
PIERCE and SMITH, JJ., concur.