Appeal of Roy W. Brooks

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed the denial of unemployment benefits to Roy W. Brooks after determining that he was discharged for misconduct connected with his work. The court held that an employee may deliberately violate a reasonably implied workplace rule protecting the employer's legitimate business interests, even when the rule is not written or specifically disclosed. The court also upheld the tribunal's admission and consideration of hearsay evidence and its finding that Brooks reported to work under the influence of alcohol.

Holdings

1. Under the second prong of New Hampshire's misconduct test under RSA 282-A:32, I(b), company rules are not limited to rules and policies that were written or specifically disclosed to the employee. A single deliberate violation of an employer expectation may constitute misconduct when the expectation is reasonably designed to protect the employer's legitimate business interests.
2. The tribunal properly found that Brooks committed misconduct by reporting to work under the influence of alcohol while on call, and the denial of unemployment benefits was proper.
3. The tribunal acted within its discretion in admitting hearsay evidence because the rules of evidence do not apply in adjudicative proceedings under RSA 541-A:33, II.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Brooks's conduct constituted misconduct under RSA 282-A:32, I(b), despite the absence of a written or specifically disclosed employer policy prohibiting an on-call employee from reporting to work under the influence of alcohol.
2. Whether the tribunal's finding that Brooks reported to work under the influence of alcohol was supported by the record.
3. Whether the tribunal permissibly admitted and considered hearsay evidence in the administrative adjudicative proceeding.

Disposition

affirmed