JEAN M. SKIDMORE
Plaintiff-Appellant
vs.
LORAIN GOODWILL INDUSTRY
ADMINISTRATOR, OHIO BUREAU
OF
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
Defendant-Appellee
No. 4094
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LORAIN
COUNTY
Slip Opinion
February 25, 1987, Decided
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE
COMMON PLEAS COURT COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE NO. 95846 85
COUNSEL
GEORGE H. McKAY, Attorney at Law, for Plaintiff.
LAWRENCE J. HACKETT, Asst. Attorney General, for Defendant.
JUDGES
WILLIAM R. BAIRD, FOR THE COURT, MAHONEY, P.J., GEORGE, J.,
CONCUR
AUTHOR: BAIRD
OPINION
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
BAIRD, J.
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each
error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is
made:
This cause came on before the court upon Skidmore's appeal from
the order affirming the decision of the Ohio Bureau of Employment
Services which suspended her benefits. We affirm.
Skidmore was a store manager for the Lorain Goodwill Store.
After a management change, she was discharged without just cause.
She applied for and obtained benefits.
The Lorain Goodwill Store offered Skidmore new employment. She
refused. The Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (O.B.E.S.)
Administrator suspended her benefits, pursuant to R.C.
4141.29(D)(2)(b).
Skidmore appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of
Review, which affirmed the suspension of her benefits. Skidmore
applied for further appeal; the Board of Review disallowed her
application. She took an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, which
affirmed.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
"The Ohio Bureau of Employment Services decision that claimant
refused an offer of suitable employment without just cause, when
the alleged offer was from a former employer who had discharged her
without just cause, was contrary to its own claims handbook and was
therefore contrary to law, unreasonable and against the manifest
weight of the evidence. The Court of Common Pleas should therefore
have reversed its decision."
In support of this assignment of error, Skidmore cites the
O.B.E.S. Ohio Claims Handbook, Non-Monetary Policy Guide, Section
510.2:
"If an individual refuses an offer of work from a former
employer, it is a refusal without good cause if the work is still
suitable in light of his or her later work experience, unless
claimant previously quit such employment with just cause, or was
discharged without just cause. * * *."
She argues that the Ohio Supreme Court has held that the
O.B.E.S. must follow its Ohio Claims Handbook, Non-Monetary Police
guide and that its failure to do so is grounds for reversal.
This is not an accurate statement of the law. The Ohio Supreme
Court has held that:
"The Administrator of the Bureau of Employment Services is
obligated, under R.C. 4141.28(F), to follow the prior
decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of
Review."
Ash v. Bd. of Review (1986),
26 Ohio St. 3d 158, at syllabus paragraph one (emphasis added).
In dicta, the court noted that the administrator did not follow
the prior decision of the board or his own ruling in the Ohio
Claims Handbook. However, it did not hold that the recommendations
of the Ohio Claims Handbook were mandatory. Under Rule 1(B) of the
Supreme Court Rules for the Reporting of Opinions,
"The syllabus of a Supreme Court opinion states the controlling
point or points of law decided in and necessarily arising from the
facts of the specific case before the Court for adjudication."
The dicta in Ash is not controlling.
Skidmore has not presented to the trial court or to this any
Board of Review decision in accord with Ohio Claims Handbook,
Non-Monetary Policy Guide, Section 510.2. The O.B.E.S.
administrator's decision was not contrary to any known board
decision and was not unreasonable, unlawful or against the manifest
weight of the evidence; the trial court properly affirmed the
decision. R.C. 4141.28(0).
Furthermore, Skidmore does not contest the primary basis for the
O.B.E.S. referee's decision, i.e., his findings that 1) Skidmore
refused Goodwill's offer of employment because she felt it was
unsuitable because of her medical problems and 2) the offered
employment was within her medical limitations.
the Ohio Claims Handbook recommendation was not binding; a
further basis exists for finding that Skidmore refused, without
good cause, an offer of suitable work. The suspension of benefits
and subsequent affirmances are not unreasonable, unlawful, or
against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The assignment of error is not well taken. the judgment of the
trial court is affirmed.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this
appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this court,
directing the County of Lorain Common Pleas Court to carry this
judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry
shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App. R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall
constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file
stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the
period for review shall begin to run. App. R. 22(E).
Costs taxed to appellant.
Exceptions.
WILLIAM R. BAIRD, FOR THE COURT
MAHONEY, P.J., GEORGE, J., CONCUR