R994-405-208. Examples of Reasons for Discharge

In the following examples, the basic elements of just cause must be considered in determining eligibility for benefits.

(1) Violation of Company Rules.

If a claimant violates a reasonable employment rule and just cause is established, benefits will be denied.

(a) An employer has the prerogative to establish and enforce work rules that further legitimate business interests. However, rules contrary to general public policy or that infringe upon the recognized rights and privileges of individuals may not be reasonable. If a claimant believes a rule is unreasonable, the claimant generally has the responsibility to discuss these concerns with the employer before engaging in conduct contrary to the rule, thereby giving the employer an opportunity to address those concerns. When rules are changed, the employer must provide appropriate notice and afford workers a reasonable opportunity to comply.

(b) If an employment relationship is governed by a formal employment contract or collective bargaining agreement, just cause may only be established if the discharge is consistent with the provisions of the contract.

(c) Habitual offenses may not constitute disqualifying conduct if the acts were condoned by the employer or were so prevalent as to be customary. However, if a claimant was given notice the conduct would no longer be tolerated, further violations may result in a denial of benefits.

(d) Culpability may be established if the violation of the rule did not, in and of itself, cause harm to the employer, but the lack of compliance diminished the employer's ability to maintain necessary discipline.

(e) Serious violations of universal standards of conduct do not require prior warning to support a disqualification.

(2) Attendance Violations.

(a) Attendance standards are usually necessary to maintain order, control, and productivity. It is the responsibility of a claimant to be punctual and remain at work within the reasonable requirements of the employer. A discharge for unjustified absence or tardiness is disqualifying if the claimant knew enforced attendance rules were being violated. A discharge for an attendance violation beyond the claimant's control is generally not disqualifying unless the claimant could reasonably have given notice or obtained permission consistent with the employer's rules, but failed to do so.

(b) In cases of discharge for violations of attendance standards, the claimant's recent attendance history must be reviewed to determine if the violation is an isolated incident, or if it demonstrates a pattern of unjustified absence within the claimant's control. The flagrant misuse of attendance privileges may result in a denial of benefits even if the last incident is beyond the claimant's control.

(3) Falsification of Work Record.

The duty of honesty is inherent in any employment relationship. An employee or potential employee has an obligation to truthfully answer material questions posed by the employer or potential employer. For purposes of this subsection, material questions are those that may expose the employer to possible loss, damage or litigation if answered falsely. If false statements were made as part of the application process, benefits may be denied regardless of whether the claimant would have been hired if all questions were answered truthfully.

(4) Insubordination.

An employer generally has the right to expect lines of authority will be followed; reasonable instructions, given in a civil manner, will be obeyed; supervisors will be respected and their authority will not be undermined. In determining when insubordination becomes disqualifying conduct, a disregard of the employer's rightful and legitimate interests is of major importance. Protesting or expressing general dissatisfaction without an overt act is not a disregard of the employer's interests. However, provocative remarks to a superior or vulgar or profane language in response to a civil request may constitute insubordination if it disrupts routine, undermines authority or impairs efficiency. Mere incompatibility or emphatic insistence or discussion by a claimant, acting in good faith, is not disqualifying conduct.

(5) Loss of License.

If the discharge is due to the loss of a required license and the claimant had control over the circumstances that resulted in the loss, the conduct is generally disqualifying. Harm is established as the employer would generally be exposed to an unacceptable degree of risk by allowing an employee to continue to work without a required license. In the example of a lost driving privilege due to driving under the influence (DUI), knowledge is established as it is understood by members of the driving public that driving under the influence of alcohol is a violation of the law and may be punishable by the loss of driving privileges. Control is established as the claimant made a decision to risk the loss of his or her license by failing to make other arrangements for transportation.

(6) Incarceration.

When a claimant engages in illegal activities, it must be recognized that the possibility of arrest and detention for some period of time exists. It is foreseeable that incarceration will result in absence from work and possible loss of employment. Generally, a discharge for failure to report to work because of incarceration due to proven or admitted criminal conduct is disqualifying.

(7) Abuse of Drugs and Alcohol.

(a) The Legislature, under the Utah Drug and Alcohol Testing Act, Section 34-38-1 et seq., has determined the illegal use of drugs and abuse of alcohol creates an unsafe and unproductive workplace. In balancing the interests of employees, employers and the welfare of the general public, the Legislature has determined the fair and equitable testing for drug and alcohol use is a reasonable employment policy.

(b) An employer can establish a prima facie case of ineligibility for benefits under the Employment Security Act based on testing conducted under the Drug and Alcohol Testing Act by providing the following information:

(i) A written policy on drug or alcohol testing consistent with the requirements of the Drug and Alcohol Testing Act and that was in place at the time the violation occurred.

(ii) Reasonable proof and description of the method for communicating the policy to all employees, including a statement that violation of the policy may result in discharge.

(iii) Proof of testing procedures used which would include:

(A) Documentation of sample collection, storage and transportation procedures.

(B) Documentation that the results of any screening test for drugs and alcohol were verified or confirmed by reliable testing methods.

(C) A copy of the verified or confirmed positive drug or alcohol test report.

(c) The above documentation shall be admissible as competent evidence under various exceptions to the hearsay rule, including Rule 803(6) of the Utah Rules of Evidence respecting "records of regularly conducted activity," unless determined otherwise by a court of law.

(d) A positive alcohol test result shall be considered disqualifying if it shows a blood or breath alcohol concentration of 0.08 grams or greater per 100 milliliters of blood or 210 liters of breath. A blood or breath alcohol concentration of less than 0.08 grams may also be disqualifying if the claimant worked in an occupation governed by a state or federal law that allowed or required discharge at a lower standard.

(e) Proof of a verified or confirmed positive drug or alcohol test result or refusal to provide a proper test sample is a violation of a reasonable employer rule. The claimant may be disqualified from the receipt of benefits if his or her separation was consistent with the employer's written drug and alcohol policy.

(f) In addition to the drug and alcohol testing provisions above, ineligibility for benefits under the Employment Security Act may be established through the introduction of other competent evidence.