Five Star Mfg., Inc. v. Tanksley

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer
• Citation: Five Star Mfg., Inc. v. Tanksley, 168 S.W.3d 719 (Mo. 2005)
• Decision Date: 30 August 2005
• Docket Number: No. 26590.,26590.
• Parties: FIVE STAR MANUFACTURING, INC., Employer-Appellant, v. David TANKSLEY, Claimant-Respondent, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent.

168 S.W.3d 719

FIVE STAR MANUFACTURING, INC., Employer-Appellant, v. David TANKSLEY, Claimant-Respondent, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent.

No. 26590.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

July 13, 2005.

Motion for Rehearing or Transfer Denied July 26, 2005.

Application for Transfer Denied August 30, 2005.

Aaron D. Jones, Donald W. Jones, Ernesto C. Gapasin, Springfield, MO, for appellant.

Larry R. Ruhmann, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.

NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, Judge.

Five Star Manufacturing, Inc. ("Appellant") appeals from the Labor & Industrial Relations Commission's finding that David Tanksley ("Claimant") was not discharged from his job for misconduct, and therefore was entitled to unemployment benefits without penalty. We affirm.

The standard of review in unemployment compensation cases is determined by section 288.210.¹ It states, in pertinent part,

Upon appeal no additional evidence shall be heard. The findings of the commission as to the facts, if supported by competent and substantial evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of the appellate court shall be confined to questions of law. The court, on appeal, may modify, reverse, remand for rehearing, or set aside the decision of the commission on the following grounds and no other:

(1) The commission acted without or in excess of its powers;

(2) That the decision was procured by fraud;

(3) That the facts found by the commission do not support the award; or

(4) That there was no sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the award.

We give deference to the Commission's findings of fact and its determinations of witness credibility. CNW Foods, Inc. v. Davidson, 141 S.W.3d 100, 102 (Mo.App. S.D.2004). We will consider the whole record when deciding whether the Commission's decision is supported by competent and substantial evidence. Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 222-223 (Mo. banc 2003). "In determining whether the decision is authorized by law, we are not bound by the Commission's conclusions of law or its application of law to facts. We review questions of law independently without any deference to the Commission's findings." Shelby v. Hayward Baker, Inc., 128 S.W.3d 164, 165-66 (Mo.App. S.D.2004) (citations omitted). Whether or not the Commission's findings support the determination of misconduct connected with work is a question of law. Rapid Roberts, Inc. v. Potter, 125 S.W.3d 395, 397 (Mo.App. S.D.2004).

The Commission found in pertinent part:

FINDINGS OF FACT:

The claimant worked for the employer for about twelve years as a welder. He last worked for the employer on February 11, 2004.

On February 11, 2004, the claimant was discharged because the employer was dissatisfied with his behavior at work. The employer eventually offered the claimant his job back, and the claimant returned to work for the employer on April 5, 2004.

On February 11, 2004, an election was held in which a collective bargaining unit was approved by the employer's employees. Although the employer's president had decided to discharge the claimant prior to the election, he waited until the election was over. He then told the claimant he was discharged, but did not give him a reason for the discharge. The claimant testified he had never received any warnings.

The "last straw" occurred on February 11, 2004, when the claimant went to the secretary's desk to get his check. The secretary was on the phone, so the claimant had to wait a short time. The secretary credibly testified that claimant seemed impatient while she was on the phone and, after he received his check, made some rude comments about being cheated on his pay, stamped his feet, and slammed the door when he was leaving. After the election was over on February 11, 2004, the claimant was discharged because of his behavior. According to the employer, the claimant had engaged in similar behavior for several months.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

"Misconduct within the meaning of an unemployment compensation act excluding from its benefits an employee discharged for misconduct must be an act of wanton or willful disregard of the employer's interest, a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or negligence in such degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design, or show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interest or of the employee's duties and obligations to the employer." Ritch v. Industrial Commission, 271 S.W.2d 791, 793 (Mo.App. 1954).

The claimant was discharged on February 11, 2004, because of his behavior. The "last straw" occurred on February 11, 2004. The claimant had never received any warnings about his behavior. Although the claimant's behavior on that date may have been rude, it does not rise to the level of misconduct connected with work, as defined in Ritch. If the claimant's on-going behavior was so inappropriate or offensive, the employer could have warned him about his behavior thereby affording the claimant an opportunity to correct the problem. Additionally, the claimant had apparently engaged in similar behavior for several months before he was discharged. While this does not excuse his behavior, he had not been warned that his behavior was unacceptable. The employer bears the burden of presenting evidence sufficient to establish misconduct connected with work. The employer has failed to meet this burden. It is concluded that the claimant was discharged on February 11, 2004, but not for misconduct connected with work.

Appellant presents one point on appeal. It contends that the Commission's determination that Claimant was not disqualified from receiving benefits is erroneous and not supported by competent and substantial evidence. It argues that the evidence, taken as a whole, shows that Claimant engaged in "willful and deliberate defiance of [Appellant's] policies and instructions and was guilty of misconduct."

Claimant was discharged by Appellant on February 11, 2004, after an incident involving Nicole Newberry ("Newberry"), a secretary employed by Appellant. Claimant had worked for Appellant, a manufacturing company, for about twelve years before his discharge, was rehired by Appellant on April 5, 2005, and was still employed by Appellant on the date of the hearing for this claim.

Newberry testified that on February 11, 2004, she was on the phone with a customer when Claimant entered her office. Before she could conclude that conversation, she said that she "could hear him over the customer. He was sitting there breathing heavily up front and getting antsy with me because I wasn't helping him." As she was hanging up the phone, another employee walked into the office. Both requested their checks. After she gave them their checks, she said, "they was [sic] making comments about being ripped off and cheated, was [sic] laughing obnoxiously, walked out the door in the hallway there, stomped — one of them stomped their foot and they both started laughing, went out the front door, slammed it and it upset me."² Newberry began to cry following this incident, and stated that "everything had piled up together for months" and that Claimant glared at her and was just hateful when he would see her in the hall. Newberry then informed her parents, who owned part of and worked at the company, about what happened. Claimant was discharged later that day.

Nancy Woodward ("Woodward"), Appellant's office manager, testified on behalf of Appellant, giving additional reasons for Claimant's termination. She stated that he failed to keep his work area clean, and when told to do so, he did it in a defiant manner. She also testified that Appellant had a posted policy stating that if an employee was going to be absent, they were to call ahead of time, otherwise the absence was unexcused. Despite that policy, Claimant was absent on Saturday, January 3, 2004, without calling in, even though it was posted in the building as a scheduled workday. She stated that Appellant did not terminate Claimant following this absence because they thought they would give him another chance and because of a pending election to determine whether Appellant would be unionized. They consulted an attorney who told them it would be unwise to terminate him before the election because it might look like they were firing him for union activity.

Woodward also testified that Claimant left work on January 12, 2004, after working only one and one-half hours, without informing Appellant as to why he was leaving. Later that same week, Claimant arrived at work on time but there was no product for him to work on. One of the owners told him that there would be product in five or ten minutes, but Claimant left without waiting.

Woodward also discussed Claimant's attitude at work, describing how he would walk down the hall and act as though he would walk into someone walking in the other direction, if that other person did not move. She stated, "I mean he walks straight towards us with a glare on his face like he's trying to antagonize us to fire him or something. I don't know what his reasoning is." The evidence was that although this behavior took place prior to his discharge, Claimant was never warned about it.

Claimant testified that he received no warnings regarding his behavior while he was employed by Appellant, and that he never got along with Jim Woodward, one of the owners. He understood that he was to be at work when scheduled, work efficiently, and keep his work area clean and tidy. He knew that he was scheduled to work on January 3, 2004, but he stayed home without calling in because he believed that he had already worked forty hours that week. The records showed, however, that he only worked thirty-two hours that week. Claimant admitted that he knew staying...