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.