ORDER OF REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION - R.A.A. C. Order No. 15-03751

Sep 17, 2026

Uploaded by Levi

State of Florida Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission order in matter of claimant and employer disputing the referee’s decision. The Commission determined the employer’s appeal was timely and that it has jurisdiction, then conducted a complete review limited to the evidentiary record. The referee’s decision was corrected to reflect both parties attended. The Commission remands because the decision failed to make all relevant factual findings and properly analyze complex legal issues, including adequacy of factual findings under Florida administrative code requirements.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages15

Reading Time38 min

AccessFree to download

ORDER OF REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION

Jurisdiction and scope of review

Issue on appeal

Correction of the hearing record

Adequacy of factual findings

Complex legal issues for remand

STATE OF FLORIDA REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION In the matter of: Claimant/Appellee R.A.A. C. Order No. 15-03751 vs. Referee Decision No. 0025314971-02U Employer/Appellant ORDER OF REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION This case comes before the Commission for disposition of the employer’s appeal pursuant to Section 443. 151(4)(c), Florida Statutes, of a referee’s decision which held the claimant not disqualified from receipt of benefits and charged the employer’s account. Upon consideration, the Commission finds that the appeal of the referee’s decision was timely filed. The Commission has jurisdiction to decide the case. Pursuant to the appeal filed in this case, the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission has conducted a complete review of the evidentiary hearing record and decision of the appeals referee. See §443 . 151(4)(c), Fla. Stat. By law, the Commission’s review is limited to those matters that were presented to the referee and are contained in the official record. The referee’s decision reflects only one party appeared at the hearing. The decision is corrected to reflect both parties appeared. The issue before the Commission is whether the claimant voluntarily left work without good cause attributable to the employing unit or was discharged by the employer for misconduct connected with work within the meaning of Section 443. 101(1), Florida Statutes. The referee’s findings of fact state as follows: The claimant began working as a swing manager for [the employer] in October 2010. The claimant was on an approved vacation from December 20, 2014 , through December 28, 2014. The claimant travelled to another state with her boyfriend while she was on vacation. The claimant was required to return to work December 29, 2014. The claimant could not return to work December 29, 2014 , because her boyfriend received a driving citation December 23, 2014 , in the state in which they travelled which could not be paid until Monday, December 29, 2014 , due to the courts being closed for the holidays. The claimant also could not return to work December 29, 2014 , because the roads were closed due to the weather. The claimant contacted her supervisor December 23, 2014 , and left a message about her inability to report to work. The claimant was told by her supervisor to keep her informed about when she would be returning to work. The claimant received a call from her supervisor December 31, 2014 , and was told she was placed on the schedule to work January 5, 2015. The claimant told her supervisor she could not make it to work January 5, 2015 , because the roads were covered in ice in the city where she and her boyfriend had travelled. The claimant subsequently received a call from someone with the employer’s business saying she was suspended. The claimant contacted the area supervisor January 8, 2015 , after she received the call about the suspension and was told by the area supervisor she had not been suspended, her shift on January 5, 2015, had been covered and he extended her vacation. The claimant met with the area supervisor on January 9, 2015 , and received a written warning during the meeting for not reporting to work December 29, 2014. The claimant was also told by the area supervisor January 9, 2015 , another member of management wanted her to be terminated, but he vouched for her. The claimant was told by the area supervisor he did her a favor and he needed her to do him a favor. The claimant was told by the area supervisor there was a need for her at another store at a different location. The claimant told the area supervisor she could not go to the other store because of the distance and that she wanted to stay at the current location. The claimant also told the area supervisor she wanted to wait for the member of management that wanted to discharge her to return on Wednesday, January 14, 2015 , to see what would happen. The claimant was presented with a resignation n

FAQs

What was the Commission’s conclusion about the employer’s appeal timeline and jurisdiction?

The Commission found the employer’s appeal of the referee’s decision was timely filed and that it has jurisdiction to decide the case.

What legal issue was before the Commission?

Whether the claimant voluntarily left work without good cause attributable to the employing unit or was discharged for misconduct connected with work under Florida Statutes § 443.101(1).

Why was the case remanded?

The Commission concluded the referee’s decision failed to make all relevant factual findings and failed to analyze the legal issues properly, including insufficient treatment of undisputed material evidence under the applicable administrative rule.

Sep 17, 2026

Uploaded by Levi