Ariz. Admin. Code § 6-3-51485

Current through Register Vol. 30, No. 25, June 21, 2024

Section R6-3-51485 - Violation of Company Rule (misconduct 485)

A. General (Misconduct 485.05)

1. An employee, discharged for violating a company rule, generally is considered discharged for misconduct connected with the work. This principle is based on the theory that when hired, an employee agrees to abide by the rules of his employer. This section covers rules peculiar to a particular employer, and not rules constituting the general code of industrial misconduct. In order for misconduct connected with the work to be found, it must be determined that the claimant knew "or should have known" of the rule and that the rule is reasonable and uniformly enforced.

2. Recognition must be accorded to the type of business in which the employer is engaged and other surrounding circumstances. The rule must be reasonable in light of public policy and should not constitute an infringement upon the recognized rights and privileges of workers as individuals. Rules to affect the employee's conduct outside the employer's premises and which could not reasonably affect the employer's interests are generally considered unreasonable.

B. Garnishment, assignment of wages, or failure to meet financial obligation (Misconduct 485.6)

1. Effective July 1, 1970, the Consumer Credit Protection Act prohibits an employer from discharging an employee on the ground that the employee's wages were subjected to garnishment for any one indebtedness (U.S.C.A. 15-1671, et seq.). A discharge in violation of this law is not disqualifying.

a. "Garnishment for a single indebtedness" would include all garnishments taken to collect one debt and relates only to a garnishment action taken during employment with one employer.

b. Questions as to whether continuing or revolving accounts and other similar debt making processes constitute a single indebtedness should be directed to any office of the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor, the organization charged with enforcement of this law.

2. When a worker is separated for a garnishment on other than a first indebtedness, misconduct may be established when the worker had received prior warning that discharge might result from such garnishment and:

a. He incurred the subsequent indebtedness through nonessential purchases, or

b. He failed to make a reasonable effort to pay for essential purchases when financially capable or make a reasonable effort to forestall garnishment on an essential purchase when not financially able to pay.

C. Motor vehicle (Misconduct 485.65). A claimant discharged for violating a company rule regarding the operation of a motor vehicle, is discharged for misconduct connected with the work when it appears that the violation of the company rule did, or could have reasonably been expected to, adversely affect the employer's interests. See R6-3-51490 regarding violation of law in connection with motor vehicles.

D. Safety regulations (Misconduct 485.8). A worker who is discharged for violation of a safety rule almost always is determined to be discharged for misconduct connected with the work. It is only when a rule is petty, unknown to the workers, previously has been unenforced, or is violated unwittingly that misconduct is not found. In considering cases involving such situations, the extent of the hazard presented by the violation of the rule, and the care which the claimant exercised, are to be considered.

Ariz. Admin. Code § R6-3-51485

Former rule number Misconduct 485. - 485.8. Former rule repealed, new Section R6-3-51485 adopted effective January 24, 1977 (Supp. 77-1). Amended effective November 7, 1979 (Supp. 79-6).