INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
EDWIN C. TURNER
IDOL 0134-97
DECISION AND ORDER
FILED: JUNE 16, 1998
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION
In a letter from the Idaho Board of Professional Engineers and Professional Land Surveyors to Stanger dated June 28, 1996, DeWitt T. Neill, P.E., Board Vice-Chairman, stated that "[t]he Board has consistently and repeatedly held that "review" of engineering work does not constitute responsible charge." DeWitt further stated that in the opinion of the Board, "it is the licensee’s obligation and responsibility to determine whether or not they have been in responsible charge of a project and to place their professional seal only on those documents for which they have been in responsible charge." Thus, Claimant had the obligation and responsibility to determine whether or not he had responsible charge. He believed that he did not. The design team implemented by Anderson to review projects for Claimant’s approval, and the changes made to the 19th Street and Rollandet Avenue construction projects after he prepared the initial design, but was asked to sign off on by Anderson, clearly demonstrate that he did not have responsible charge.
IDAPA 09.01.30.476.01 provides that:
Moral or Ethical Quit. A claimant who leaves a job because of a reasonable and serious objection on moral or ethical grounds to work requirements of the employer and is otherwise eligible, shall not be denied benefits.
We find that the Claimant left employment because of reasonable and serious ethical grounds.
He could have been in the position of violating state law, compromising his professional ethics, and risking the loss of his license if he approved projects over which he did not exercise responsible charge. We further find that Claimant had no viable alternatives available to him. He had already been demoted twice; both Anderson and Stanger refused to accept his opinion regarding responsible charge. There was nothing left to do but leave. Thus, we conclude that Claimant left employment with good cause connected with employment. The Decision of the Appeals Examiner is reversed, and Claimant is eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.