Fruehauf Division, Fruehauf Corp. v. Armstrong
| Decision Date | 04 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 43532,43532 |
| Citation | 620 S.W.2d 67 |
| Parties | FRUEHAUF DIVISION, FRUEHAUF CORPORATION, Respondent, v. Charles ARMSTRONG, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Stuart R. Berkowitz, Clayton, Timothy Duggan, Jefferson City, for appellant.
Thomas McCarthy, Clayton, for respondent.
Claim for benefits under Chapter 288, RSMo.1978, the Missouri Employment Security Law. Charles Armstrong (hereinafter "claimant") was discharged from Fruehauf Corporation (hereinafter "employer") upon the ground that he used abusive and obscene language disrupting the orderly conduct of employer's business. Claimant allegedly used such language as a result of mistreatment by employer in connection with an injury on the job. Claimant denied uttering any obscenities in connection with his alleged mistreatment by employer. Employer's witnesses, however, testified to claimant's use of obscenities.
On August 24, 1979, the deputy concluded that claimant was not entitled to receive benefits for five (5) weeks based upon the finding that claimant's discharge was for misconduct connected with his work. Claimant appealed. After another hearing, the appeals referee affirmed the decision of the deputy. Claimant appealed this decision to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (hereinafter "Commission"). On May 20, 1980, the Commission reversed the decision of the appeals referee, concluding that claimant was not discharged for misconduct in connection with his work. Employer appealed to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. On September 9, 1980, the circuit court reversed the decision of the Commission reinstating the decision of the appeals referee. Claimant appeals.
We must review the record in a light most favorable to the Commission's findings together with all reasonable inferences in support of those findings. Section 288.210, RSMo.1978; Nelson v. Labor & Indus. Relat. Com'n., 594 S.W.2d 356, 358 (Mo.App.1980); Lyell v. Labor & Indus. Relat. Com'n., 553 S.W.2d 899, 901 (Mo.App.1977). Deference must be given to the Commission, as trier of the facts, in its assessment of credibility. Cullors v. Mo. Div. of Employ. Security, 564 S.W.2d 596, 598 (Mo.App.1978).
The decision as to whether claimant's actions constituted "misconduct connected with his work" is a question of law as to which we are not bound by the Commission's findings. Sain v. Labor & Indus. Relat. Com'n., 564 S.W.2d 59, 61 (Mo.App.1978) . Claimant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laclede Gas Co. v. Labor and Indus. Relations Com. of Mo.
...of law. See Haynes v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 353 Mo. 540, 183 S.W.2d 77, 80 (1944); Fruehauf Division, Fruehauf Corp. v. Armstrong, 620 S.W.2d 67, 68[3, 4] (Mo.App.1981) (whether acts constituted "misconduct connected with his work" under § 288.050.2 RSMo.1978 is a question o......
-
Yoldash v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Div.
...use of abusive language towards foreman and threat to employer in presence of other employees); Fruehauf Division, Fruehauf Corp. v. Armstrong, (1981) Mo.App., 620 S.W.2d 67 (abusive and obscene language disrupting the orderly conduct of employer's business); Mitchell v. Lovington Good Sama......
-
Powell v. Division of Employment Sec., Labor and Indus. Relations Com'n of Missouri
...288.050.2. This is a question of law, and we are not bound by the Commission's decision. Fruehauf Division, Fruehauf Corp. v. Armstrong, 620 S.W.2d 67, 68 (Mo.App.1981); Sain v. Labor & Industrial Relations Commission, 564 S.W.2d 59, 61 Neither Section 288.050 nor Chapter 288 defines the ph......
-
Richard v. Properties
...case. The [C]ommission was obligated to make unequivocal, affirmative findings of the facts. Fruehauf Division, Fruehauf Corporation v. Armstrong, 620 S.W.2d 67, 69 (Mo.App.1981) “The order of the commission is subject to review by the courts to determine whether it is ‘authorized by law’ a......