
    John E. SEIFRIED, Appellant, v. SHELL LUMBER AND HARDWARE COMPANY and Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, Appellees.
    No. 93-281.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    June 22, 1993.
    John E. Seifried, in pro. per.
    John D. Maher, Tallahassee, for appel-lees.
    Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Because the appeals referee’s determination that appellant was not guilty of misconduct, see Varig Brazilian Airlines v. Florida Department of Commerce, 354 So.2d 921 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), was supported by competent evidence, it was unjustifiably reversed by the Unemployment Appeals Commission on the basis of its own conclusion that he was. See Cheung v. Executive China Doral, Inc., 617 So.2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Iglesias v. Eagle Nat’l Bank of Miami, 598 So.2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Accordingly, the order below is reversed with directions to afford Seifried the unemployment benefits claimed.

SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BASKIN, J., concur.

JORGENSON, Judge,

dissenting.

The appeals referee’s determination that Seifried was not guilty of misconduct was a conclusion based upon evidence which is not disturbed by the Unemployment Appeals Commission. The Commission owes no deference to conclusions of law and is entitled to construe section 443.036(26), Florida Statutes (1991), in accordance with established law and policy. See Ritenour v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 570 So.2d 1106 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Microfile, Inc. v. Williams, 425 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).

I would affirm.  