Mohawk Tools Appellee
 vs.

Administrator, Ohio  Bureau of Employment Services, et al. appellants

NO. WMS-85-15
COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO, WILLIAMS COUNTY, OHIO
Slip Opinion
March 14, 1986

Appeal from Williams County Common Pleas Court, No. 24619.

 COUNSEL

William A. Bish, 1210 W. High, Box 486, Bryan, OH 43506, for plaintiff
George H. Calloway, Asst. Atty. Gen., 145 S. Front St., Columbus, OH 43215, for defendant

 JUDGES

Peter M. Handwork, J., and Alice Robie Resnick, J., concur
 AUTHOR: CONNORS

 OPINION

 

 

 
CONNORS, JOHN J., P. J.

 

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

 

This cause came to be heard upon the record in the trial court. Each assignment of error was reviewed by the court and upon review the following disposition made:

 

This case is an appeal from a final judgment of the Williams County Court of Common Pleas. The pertinent facts may be summarized as follows. On December 15, 1983, appellant was denied unemployment compensation for the reason that she had been discharged from her employment for just cause. A timely request for reconsideration was filed and denied. Thereafter, appellant filed a notice of appeal with the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review and a hearing was held before a duly appointed referee. On February 10, 1984, the referee reversed the administrator's denial of benefits on the basis that the claimant had been discharged without just cause. Requests for further appeal were denied and thereafter the matter was appealed to the Williams County Court of Common Pleas. >That court, on September 17, 1985, overturned the decision of the Board of Review and reinstated the decision of the administrator. Thereafter, appellant filed the instant appeal, asserting the following assignment of error:

 

"The Common Pleas Court below erred in finding that the employer

 

had just cause, pursuant to R.C. 4141.29(D) (2) (a), to discharge

 

an employee for excessive absenteeism where the majority of the

 

absences were due to a legitimate recurring medical condition

 

which was substantiated by competent medical authority."

 

Prior to the filing of her claim for benefits, the claimant was last employed by Mohawk Tools from May 1, 1973, through November 29, 1983, as a machine operator. The employer's attendance policy was based on a point system which assigned various amounts of penalty points depending on the reasons for absences. The accumulation of twenty-seven or more points within a one-year period was sufficient for discharge. Under the point system, absences which were properly reported and substantiated by a doctor's statement were properly reported and substantiated by a doctor's statement were assessed the minimum of one penalty point regardless of how many consecutive days each such absence extended.

 

In 1983, the claimant accumulated twenty-seven points in absences, and was discharged on November 29, 1983. The majority of those penalty points were assessed in connection with absences caused by a legitimate recurring medical condition, and in each instance the employer was supplied with verification by the treating physician.

 

Following a careful review of the record in this case and the applicable law, and most importantly upon consideration of the trial court's amended decision, filed September 5, 1985, we find the assignment of error not well-taken, and it is, therefore, denied. We find that the trial court's amended decision fully, carefully, and completely considers all of the relevant matters which this court must consider, and upon review and comparison of the record and the law with the trial court's amended decision, we find it to be well-reasoned and correct. We, therefore, adopt said amended decision as our own (see Appendix) and affirm the decision of the trial court.

 

Upon consideration whereof, this court finds that substantial justice has been done the parties complaining, and the judgment of the Williams County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. This cause is remanded to said court for execution of judgment and assessment of costs. Costs assessed against appellants.

 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute them mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See also Supp. R. 4, amended 1180.

 

AMENDED DECISION

 

APPENDIX A

 

This cause came on to be heard on the appeal of Mohawk Tools from a decision of the Board of Review of Unemployment Compensation of the State of Ohio (the "Board"). Before the Court is the case file, the transcript of testimony taken on January 30, 1984, a copy of the Administrator's file, a copy of the Board's file and briefs of counsel.

 

Mary S. Krontz was employed by Mohawk Tools on May 1, 1973 and last worked on November 29, 1983. She was terminated for accumulating excessive points which the employer had assigned for various infractions of work rules. Mohawk Tools established a written policy pertaining to employee absences from work. Points were assigned for each absence or tardiness. Each employee was provided written warnings as points were accumulated. In each calendar year, the employees record was reviewed.

 

The employee accumulated twenty-seven points within a one year period and was discharged. Eight points were for non-medically related causes within that period.

 

Mary Krontz filed for unemployment compensation on November 30, 1983.

 

On December 15, 1983, the Administrator denied her claim and held that she was discharged for just cause because of excessive absenteeism according to the Company Absentee Control Program.

 

The appellee filed a request for reconsideration and, on January 6, 1984, the Administrator affirmed the original denial of the claim.

 

On January 11, 1984, the appellee appealed the decision of the Administrator to the Board of Review. A hearing was held on January 30, 1984 and, on February 10, 1984, the Referee ruled that the claimant (appellee) was discharged by Mohawk Tools without just cause.

 

Mohawk instituted an appeal to the Board of Review which affirmed the Referee's decision. An appeal to this court followed.

 

The issue before the Court is whether the decision of the Board of Review was lawful, reasonable and consistent with the manifest weight of the evidence. See R.C. 414.28(O). To resolve that issue, the Court must determine whether the appellee was discharged for just cause in connection with her work under R.C. 4141.29.

 

The facts in this case are not in dispute regarding the employee's absences and tardiness.

 

The Referee in his decision ruled that "[A]ny attendance policy which fails to take into account the reason for the employee absence is on its face unreasonable." The Mohawk written Absentee Control Program did take into account the reason for the employee's absence from work. Separate categories were established and points were assigned those absences.

 

The Referee further found that the absences were for legitimate medical reasons. That finding is not supported by the record. Eight of appellee's absences were for non-related medical reasons.

 

In addition, chronic medical problems for employees are provided for in Rule 7(A).

 

The decision of the Board of Review, in effect, held that the written policy of Mohawk was void and that any termination of employment based on that policy was not for good cause.

 

It is settled law in Ohio that excessive absenteeism and tardiness can be the basis for discharge for good cause. Ohio Ferro-Alloy Corporation v. Tichnor, 83 Ohio L. Abs. 254 (1959). The Court in Ohio-Ferro-Alloys Corporation, supra, acknowledged the employer's right to establish a standard of punctuality and consistent attendance:

 

The reasons for promptness or the effect of lateness were matters

 

for the consideration and determination of the employing company

 

in the absence of any known or discernible evidence to the contrary

 

and established policy in this regard is understandable and should

 

be unequivocal. Determination and control is such respect clearly

 

lies in the field of management and its considered judgment is a

 

part of the authority that underlies its responsibility as a private

 

enterprise and answerable to its directors, stockholders and to its

 

other employees in the plant's operation. (at pages 255-256.)

 

The Administrator relies on the case of Schultz v. Herman's Furniture (1976), 52 Ohio App. 2d 161 as binding precedent. That case is distinguished on its facts. Each and every illness and tardiness of the employee-Schultz was a result of her illness. In the case at Bar, the employee Krontz accumulated eight points for non-medically related causes within the one year period.

 

It is the decision of the Court that Mary S. Krontz had wilfully violated the written absentee policy of her employer, that the Mohawk rules and regulations covering employees' absences and tardiness from work were reasonable and that the employee was discharged for good cause. The decision of the Board of Review is reversed and the decision of the Administrator is reinstated. Appellees ordered to pay the costs.

 

The attorney for the appellant shall prepare a Judgment Entry pursuant to the rule.

 

Robert Wilson, Judge.

 

cc: William A. Bish, Esq. and George H. Calloway, Esq.

 DISPOSITION
 

Affirmed.