ROBERT L. HAYNESWORTH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
BOARD OF
REVIEW, OHIO BUREAU OF
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES,
Defendant-Appellee
No. 52519
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA
COUNTY
Slip Opinion
January 22, 1987, Decided
CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS, CASE NO. 103,007.
COUNSEL
JOSEPH J. McGINNESS, ESQ. for plaintiff-appellant.
ANTHONY J. CELEBREZZE, JR., ESQ., Ohio Attorney General, JEFFREY B.
DUBER, ESQ., Assistant Attorney General, for
defendant-appellee.
JUDGES
RICHARD M. MARKUS, C.J., ANN McMANAMON AND JOHN V. CORRIGAN,
JJ.
OPINION
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
PER CURIAM:
This appeal arises from the trial court's affirmance of a
decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying
unemployment benefits to the appellant, Robert Haynesworth. The
appellant was discharged from his position at Stouffers Corporation
on May 20, 1985. The discharge resulted from his misappropriation
of funds entrusted to him as treasurer of the Lucky Ladies and
Gents Bowling League, an interdepartmental bowling league comprised
of 30 Stouffer employees and two others.
The appellant withdrew $3,410 from the league bank account and
lent $1,200 to a friend and retained the rest. The funds were to be
refunded to the participants at a Bowling Banquet scheduled for May
8, 1985.
His inability to return the funds to his co-employees resulted
in dissatisfaction and various complaints being lodged with the
management of Stouffer's Corp.
On May 20, 1985, he was discharged for taking funds belonging to
fellow employees without authorization. Subsequent to his
discharge, he made restitution in full from pension funds he
received upon his termination.
The Referee held that the appellant had been discharged for just
cause in connection with work. He found that the appellant's
conduct in taking his fellow employees' personal funds without
authorization or permission caused dissension among fellow
employees which was detrimental to his employer's best interests.
The Board of Review affirmed the denial of benefits, as did the
trial court on appeal. Haynesworth appeals contending that the
Referee's findings are unlawful, unreasonable and against the
manifest weight of the evidence. The appellant's arguments
essentially only contend that the findings are against the manifest
weight of the evidence, although the assignment is framed more
broadly.
A decision from the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the
essential elements of the dispute will not be reversed as being
against the manifest weight of the evidence. Angelkovski v.
Buckeye Potato Chips Company (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 159.
The Common Pleas Court may not substitute its judgment for that of
the Board of Review. Simon v. Lake Geauga Printing
Company (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 41; Brown-Brockmeyer
Co. v. Roach (1947), 148 Ohio St. 511.
An appellate court in reviewing a determination of a court of
common pleas on manifest weight of the evidence on appeal from the
board of review, may reverse only upon a showing that the trial
court abused its discretion. Angelkovski v. Buckeye Potato
Chips Co., supra. Abuse of discretion
connotes more than an error of judgment; it implies a decision
which is without a reasonable basis, one which is clearly wrong.
Id.
The only issue here is whether there was sufficient evidence to
establish that the appellant was discharged for just cause in
connection with his work. Under the circumstances, we must conclude
there was.
The overwhelming majority of people involved in the intramural
league were co-employees. Thus, the majority of the money taken
belonged to fellow employees. That the appellant's actions had an
adverse effect on the work atmosphere is evidenced by the numerous
complaints received by management with regard to the situation.
The critical issue is whether an employee, by his actions,
demonstrated an unreasonable disregard for his employer's best
interests. Stephens v. Board of Review (June 2,
1980), Cuyahoga App. No. 51369, unreported. The misappropriation of
fellow employees' funds created a situation at the work place which
certainly ran contrary to the employer's best interests.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial
court.
It is ordered that appellee(s) recover of appellant(s)
its costs herein taxed.
The Court finds there was reasonable grounds for this
appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court
directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this
judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
RICHARD M. MARKUS, C.J., ANN McMANAMON AND JOHN V. CORRIGAN,
JJ.
DISPOSITION
Affirmed.