Linda S. Musgrave, Petitioner,
v.
Eben Ezer Lutheran
Institute and the Industrial Commission
of the State of Colorado,
Respondents.
No. 86CA0446.
731 P.2d 142
Colorado
Court of Appeals,
Div. III.
Oct. 23, 1986.
Ann M. la Plante, Colorado Rural Legal Services, Inc., Greeley,
for petitioner.
Brandenburg & Schultz, Helena Schultz, Brush, for respondent Eben
Ezer Lutheran Institute.
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty.
Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Aurora Ruiz-Hernandez, Asst.
Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent Industrial Comn.
BABCOCK, Judge.
Linda S. Musgrave, claimant, seeks review of a final order of the
Industrial Commission (Commission) disqualifying her from receiving
unemployment compensation benefits. We set aside the order, and
remand for further findings.
Claimant was employed as dietary department head at Eben Ezer
Lutheran Institute (employer). Pursuant to a management
reorganization of this department, claimant's responsibilities were
divided, her salary cut, and her title and job changed to
co-department head.
A month and a half later, claimant's supervisor showed her a
letter citing deficiencies in her performance, which claimant
disputed, and requesting remedial action within 30 days. When
claimant attempted to discuss the letter, the supervisor was
unavailable, and he refused to let her have a copy of it. Fearing
her supervisor was developing a case to discharge her, claimant did
not pursue employer's internal grievance procedures, but quit two
weeks later.
The deputy initially determined that although claimant resigned
because of dissatisfaction with her supervisor, the supervisor's
actions were unreasonable and need not have been tolerated by
claimant. She was awarded full benefits, and the employer appealed
the decision.
The hearing officer found that claimant quit after reading the
letter criticizing her job performance. He further found that,
although claimant was dissatisfied with her supervisor's actions,
she did not discuss the matter with him or utilize the employer's
internal grievance procedures. Based on these findings, the hearing
officer disqualified her from receiving benefits under Sec.
8-73-108(5)(e)(I), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B).
Section 8-73-108(5)(e)(I) provides that an employee is
disqualified from receiving benefits if the employee quits because
of dissatisfaction with "standard working conditions." Relying on
Martinez v. Industrial Commission, 657 P.2d 457 (Colo.App.1982),
and Warburton v. Industrial Commission, 678 P.2d 1076
(Colo.App.1984), claimant contends that, since she quit subsequent
to a substantial unfavorable change in her working conditions, the
Commission erred in not awarding her full benefits pursuant to Sec.
8-73-108(4)(d), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B).
Section 8-73-108(4)(d), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B) provides for a
full award of benefits if a claimant resigns because of a
substantial change in working conditions that is less favorable to
the claimant. A change in duties or demotion is a substantial change
in working conditions less favorable to claimant, Martinez v.
Industrial Commission, supra, as is the situation in which a
claimant has been relieved of administrative or supervisory
responsibilities, Warburton v. Industrial Commission, supra,
and as is a reduction in salary. Cf. Sec. 8-73-108(4)(e),
C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B).
If an employee's termination follows such a substantial change in
working conditions, the statutory provision concerning
dissatisfaction with standard working conditions is inapplicable.
Martinez v. Industrial Commission, supra; Industrial
Commission v. McIntyre, 162 Colo. 227, 425 P.2d 279 (1967).
However, this does not preclude an employee from acquiescing in
changes, thereby establishing new "standard working conditions," and
it may bar benefits if the claimant thereafter quits because of
dissatisfaction with the new working conditions. Jennings v.
Industrial Commission, 682 P.2d 518 (Colo.App.1984).
Because the claimant had suffered a "substantial change in
working conditions," the Commission incorrectly disqualified
claimant under Sec. 8-73-108(5)(e)(I). See Martinez v. Industrial
Commission, supra; Warburton v. Industrial Commission, supra;
Industrial Commission v. McIntyre, supra. Moreover, the
Commission made no findings on whether claimant had acquiesced in
the new working conditions and, thus, had no basis for applying Sec.
8-73-108(5)(e)(I) to disqualify claimant.
Claimant correctly argues that her failure to pursue employer's
grievance procedures and discussions with her supervisor should not
have been dispositive of her eligibility for benefits. Neither
course of action is required by statute as a prerequisite to an
award of benefits.
An order may be set aside if it is not supported by sufficient
findings of fact. Stern v. Industrial Commission, 667 P.2d
244 (Colo.App.1983). Because the Commission failed to make the
necessary findings to support a denial of benefits, the order is set
aside and the cause is remanded to the Industrial Claim Appeals
Office for further findings consistent with this opinion.
Van Cise and Metzger, JJ., concur.
Printer-friendly version