H-1482.1 _______________________________________________
HOUSE BILL 1707
_______________________________________________
State of Washington 55th Legislature 1997 Regular Session
By Representatives McMorris and Mulliken
Read first time 02/05/97. Referred to Committee on Commerce & Labor.
AN ACT Relating to defining misconduct for unemployment insurance purposes; and amending RCW 50.04.293.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
Sec. 1. RCW 50.04.293 and 1993 c 483 s 1 are each amended to read as follows:
(1)
"Misconduct" means an employee's ((act or failure to act in
willful disregard of his or her employer's interest where the effect of the
employee's act or failure to act is to harm the employer's business)) on-the-job
conduct, whether an act or a failure to act, that:
(a) Violates a written rule of his or her employer and the rule is reasonable under the circumstances of the employment;
(b) Is connected with the employee's work; and
(c) Is intentional or grossly negligent, or is continued after documented notice or warning, and is not a result of incompetence, inefficiency, erroneous judgment, or ordinary negligence.
(2) In the case of an employee's off-the-job conduct, "misconduct" is conduct, whether an act or a failure to act, that:
(a) Has a reasonable and direct relation to the conduct of the employer's business;
(b) Results in some harm to the employer's interest;
(c) Was done with intent or knowledge that the employer's interest would suffer; and
(d) Meets the requirements of subsection (1)(a) and (b) of this section.
(3) If a determination of an allowance of benefits is appealed by an employer on the grounds that the employee's misconduct violated an unwritten rule of the employer, the employer has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that: (a) Except for the requirement of a written rule, the requirements of subsection (1) or (2) of this section, whichever applies, are met; and (b) as established by at least two competent witnesses, both the rule in issue and the expectation that the rule would be followed were communicated to the employee.
--- END ---