FILED JULY 29, 1998

INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Employer, City of Idaho Falls, through counsel, has filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Industrial Commission’s previous Decision and Order in this matter.

Here, Employer has not advanced any legal justification or persuasive argument which convinces us that this matter should be decided any differently. Moreover, Employer’s argument is misplaced. Claimant is a credible witness. The record is also clear he was asked to sign the Burns Addition plat, with "as constructed" improvement drawings. (Exhibit 39). Mr. Anderson, Claimant’s direct supervisor, had asked to design new curbs and gutters for the project. Claimant’s design was not used, and the project was completed with new curbs and gutters, sidewalks, and asphalt paving. Part of the paving involved constructing a new base and sub-base. Claimant was not told either who engineered the final design of the project, or what the alignments used were. Claimant did not have responsible charge of the project.  Mr. Anderson testified Claimant’s review and approval of the plan were necessary to see that it complied with city regulations. Claimant could not do so without violating his ethical standards as a Professional Engineer. Thus, we deny Employer’s Motion for Reconsideration.

This is a final order under Idaho Code, 72-1368(g).

Employer’s Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED; the Commission’s prior Decision and Order in this matter is AFFIRMED; and Claimant is eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

DATED at Boise, Idaho, this 29^th day of July, 1998

INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION