DIGEST OF ADJUDICATION PRECEDENTS MS
MS-23 (01/11)
Neither the Referee nor Board of Review made a finding that the violations were deliberate or willful. Still, both held that "not
following correct procedures" and "disregarding the employer's requirements" constituted misconduct.
The claimant sought judicial review.
HELD: Effective January 1, 1988, a definition of misconduct was added to Section 602A of the Act. That definition provides, in
pertinent part: "Misconduct" means the deliberate and willful violation of a reasonable rule or policy....
The definition includes the terms "deliberate" and "willful" and makes no reference to "carelessness or negligence" of any degree.
This indicates that the legislature intended that persons discharged for incapacity, inadvertence, negligence or inability to perform
assigned tasks should receive benefits.
Terms such as "not following correct procedures" or "disregarding the employer's requirements" do not suffice to comply with the
statutory definition. It is necessary to show that a worker's non-compliance was deliberate and willful.
In this case, there being no finding of any "deliberate" or "willful" violation of rules, there could be no misconduct under Section
602A. Benefits were allowed without disqualification.
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Miscellaneous/MS 95.3
DOCKET/DATE Hart v. Jackson, No. 1-90-0276 (1990)
AUTHORITY Section 601A of the Act
TITLE Construction of Statutes
SUBTITLE Statute as a Whole as an Aid to Construction
CROSS-REFERENCE VL 450.4, Time, Part-time or Full-time
The claimant became separated from full-time work, upon which his claim for benefits could be based. He then quit his part-time
job, located near the full-time job, because his travel expenses were now excessive in relation to his part-time wages (which were
less than one-half what his weekly benefit amount would be). He was denied benefits, under Section 601A, for voluntarily leaving
his last job.
The claimant argued that, even though he quit work for reasons not attributable to his part-time employer, he should not be denied
benefits under Section 601A.
HELD: Section 601A applies whether a claimant leaves full-time or part-time work. (See Minfield v. Bernardi, this Digest, VL
450.4.)
However, the term "work" in Section 601A does not mean work upon which no claim is made and which has no effect upon
entitlement to or the amount of benefits. Therefore, Section 601A does not apply where the following conditions exist:
1) the claimant becomes separated from primary full-time work upon which his claim is based;
2) the claimant's entitlement and benefit amount would be unaffected by whether or not he remained at the
secondary part-time job; that is, if he remained at the part-time job, he would still be unemployed under
Section 239 and would not have his benefits reduced under Section 402.
Here, the claimant left his part-time job under those circumstances. He was not ineligible under Section 601A.
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Miscellaneous/MS 95.3
DOCKET/DATE Dolores Weingart v. IDOL, No. 64344 (1988)
AUTHORITY Sections 703 and 900 of the Act
TITLE Construction of Statutes
SUBTITLE Statute as a Whole as an Aid to Construction
CROSS-REFERENCE MS 375.2. Receipt of Other Payments
The claimant was employed by Advo-Systems, Inc., until August 21, 1980, after which she filed for and received unemployment
benefits: $116 per week from August, 1980 through June, 1981, totalling $4,408.
