BANK ONE, CLEVELAND, N.A.,
Appellant
vs.
CAROL MASON et al.,
Appellees
No. 57590
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA
COUNTY
582 N.E.2d 1085, 64 Ohio App. 3d 723
January 22, 1990, Decided
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal
from Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 151,627.
COUNSEL
Donald F. Woodcock and Thomas R.
Coerdt, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Attorney
General, and Merrill H. Henkin; Sanford Gross,
Cleveland, Ohio, for appellees.
JUDGES
Patton, P.J., Matia and Nahra, JJ., concur.
AUTHOR: PER CURIAM
OPINION
{*724} Employer Bank One, Cleveland, N.A. ("Bank One")
appeals from the trial court's ruling that affirmed the
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's finding that claimant
Carol Mason was entitled to unemployment benefits because she was
discharged without just cause. The employer's three
assigned errors challenge the trial court's ruling.
The relevant facts
are not disputed. Claimant had been employed by Chardon Savings
Bank since 1957. She performed her work satisfactorily and was
promoted to branch manager. In 1984, Bank One merged with Chardon
Savings Bank. Work standards changed and claimant received
unsatisfactory performance reviews. She was reassigned as an
assistant branch manager, albeit at the same rate of pay as a
branch manager. Upon further review, the employer suggested that
claimant seek other positions within or outside the
bank.
Claimant believed
this to be an untenable situation in view of the fact that her
scheduled retirement was several months away. On December 21, 1987,
she submitted a letter of resignation stating, "This will serve as
notice of my resignation from employment at BANK ONE, CLEVELAND,
N.A., effective January 11, 1988."
Upon receiving the
letter of resignation, the bank construed the letter according to
its internal policy of immediately terminating employees in
sensitive positions. Claimant was paid for a two-week period, up to
and including January 1, 1988.
The referee assigned
to hear this matter concluded that the employer's termination of
employment prior to the claimant's stated date of resignation
constituted a discharge without just cause. The court's affirmance
of that ruling is the sole issue on appeal.
Resignation in
anticipation of being discharged has been found to be quitting
without just cause under R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(a). See Noelker
v. Great Oaks
Joint Vocational School (1982), 8
Ohio App.3d 327, 8 OBR 437, 457 {*725} N.E.2d 340;
Mosley v. Bd. of Review (Jan. 15, 1987), Cuyahoga
App. No. 51405, unreported, at 9, 1987 WL 5451. However, in some
circumstances the coercion of an employer in inducing the claimant
to resign may lead to the conclusion a resignation was so forced
that it results in a constructive discharge. See De Le
Torre v. Bd. of Edn. (May 16, 1985), Cuyahoga App. No.
49112, unreported, at 11, 1985 WL 9004.
Discharge prior to
the effective date of an employee's resignation is a different
matter. In Opportunity Consultants, Inc. v. Tugrul
(1976), 47 Ohio App.2d 346, 1 O.O.3d 403, 354 N.E.2d 698, the court
held that where an employee informs an employer he is resigning at
a date in the future and the employer immediately discharges the
employee, solely for that reason, it is not a termination for a
failure or fault of the employee. Id. at 348, 1
O.O.3d at 403, 354 N.E.2d at 699. This reasoning has been applied
to applications for unemployment compensation benefits. See
Taylor Winfield Corp. v. Gindele (Nov. 30, 1981),
Trumbull App. No. 2988, unreported, 1981 WL 4323.
We agree that a
termination prior to the effective date of an employee's
prospective resignation constitutes a dismissal without just cause
pursuant to R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(a). A resignation is voluntary only
as to the date on which the employee intends that the resignation
takes effect.1 In a proper case, an employer might have a
justifiable reason for seeking to implement a prospective
resignation immediately. We have no occasion to detail what those
reasons might be, but we are of the opinion that such reasons would
need to be closely tailored to a legitimate interest of the
employer and must be reasonably communicated to
the employee prior to the submission of a letter of
resignation.
In this case, the
employer asserted what it deemed to be a justifiable reason for
immediate discharge. The evidence, however, fails to show that the
employer's "policy" had ever been communicated to its employees.2
Since the resolution of purely factual questions is primarily for
the board to determine, Hall v. American Brake
Shoe (1968), 13 Ohio St.2d 11, 42 O.O.2d 6, 233 N.E.2d
582, we find that the trial court properly affirmed that finding.
We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling.
Angelkovski v. Buckeye Potato Chip Co. (1983), 11
Ohio App.3d 159, 11 OBR 242, 463 N.E.2d 1280;
{*726} Feldman v. Loeb (1987), 37
Ohio App.3d 188, 525 N.E.2d 496. The assigned errors are
overruled.
The judgment is
affirmed.
Judgment
affirmed.
Patton, P.J., Matia
and Nahra, JJ., concur.
DISPOSITION
Judgment
affirmed.
OPINION
FOOTNOTES
1 Claimant stated that she made her resignation prospective for
the reason that her immediate supervisor was scheduled for vacation
time. By giving three weeks' notice, her resignation would not have
been effective until her supervisor returned.
2 An employee
handbook was admitted into evidence at the hearing. The handbook
does not detail the employer's "policy" of immediately terminating
employees who resign prospectively.