1. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION — Basic Findings and Conclusions — Reason for Quitting — Discriminatory Treatment — Change in Working Conditions — Supported by Evidence — Binding — Court of Appeals. In unemployment compensation proceeding, although there was conflicting evidence on certain matters and although some of the findings were not supported by evidence, there was sufficient evidence to support the basic findings and conclusions of the Industrial Commission as to claimant's having quit his job because of a change in working conditions consisting of hostile attitudes and discriminatory treatment which followed upon his having begun a social relationship with a co-employee of another race; and accordingly, the Court of Appeals is bound by those findings and conclusions.
Opinion by JUDGE ENOCH.
Gray Moving and Storage, Inc., employer, petitions for review of a final order of the Industrial Commission granting full unemployment compensation benefits to claimant, Henry M. Brewington. We affirm.
Claimant worked as a driver, helper, and packer from February 21, 1974 to September 22, 1975, when he quit because of alleged discrimination. The discrimination was evidenced by an alleged change of attitude and treatment by his supervisor and by the assignment of the least desirable jobs. Claimant contends that the discrimination began when the employer learned that claimant, who is black, was dating a female co-employee who is Caucasian.
The commission concluded that "claimant quit his job because of a change in his working conditions which became intolerable because of the attitudes and working atmosphere which deteriorated following his association with the other employee." Employer contends that there is insufficient evidence to support this conclusion, and in any event such change in working conditions would not support an award under § 8-73-108(4)(c) or (d), C.R.S. 1973.
[1] Though there is conflicting evidence with regard to work assignments, and some of the findings are not supported by evidence, there is evidence to support the basic findings and the conclusions, and we are bound thereby. Gatewood v. Russell, 29 Colo. App. 11, 478 P.2d 679. Employer contends that since claimant continued to receive all the necessary communication to fulfill his job responsibility, personal relationships within the company are not to be considered in evaluating working conditions. We disagree. There is evidence that claimant was subjected to cold, curt treatment by his immediate supervisor who spoke openly of claimant in derogatory terms. [2] Overt acts or conduct by the employer directed at one employee such as is present here is sufficient to support a full award. It is not required that working conditions become impossible, only that there be a substantial change. Section § 8-73-108(4)(d), C.R.S. 1973.
Employer further contends that ostracism, as found by the Commission, cannot, as a matter of law, constitute a change in working conditions sufficient to support an award for compensation. We do not perceive ostracism as being a legal principle under the Unemployment Compensation Act that would dictate the granting or denying of compensation; rather, ostracism is a factual matter which may or may not evidence a change in working conditions. Here, the evidence of ostracism, along with other evidence, showed that there was a substantial change to less favorable working conditions for claimant.
Employer also contends that the change of conditions was created by the employee and not the employer; therefore no award is proper. We do not agree. The only change created by claimant was the relationship between himself and the other employee, and there is no evidence that this relationship affected working conditions, job performance, or attitudes of claimant or any other employees. The change in working conditions as found by the Commission was brought about by the supervisor, and was directed toward claimant and not to all employees.
The award is affirmed.
JUDGE COYTE and JUDGE STERNBERG concur.