IXL Mfg. Co. v. Labor and Industrial Relations Com'n of Missouri, 13641
| Decision Date | 19 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 13641,13641 |
| Citation | 679 S.W.2d 903 |
| Parties | IXL MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Petitioner-Respondent, v. LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF MISSOURI, et al., Respondents- Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Dennis P. Wilson, Dexter, for petitioner-respondent.
Timothy P. Duggan, Jefferson City, for respondents-appellants.
Jimmie Crank was discharged by his employer, IXL Manufacturing Company, for careless and unsafe operation of a lathe machine. IXL manufactures wooden handles for tools such as axes and sledgehammers.
Crank filed an application for unemployment benefits. A deputy for the Division of Employment Security found Crank had been discharged for unsatisfactory work by improperly loading his machine, which resulted in a waste of product and created a safety hazard to Crank and other employees. The deputy determined Crank was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits for a period of eight weeks. Crank appealed that determination, and after a de novo hearing, the Appeals Tribunal of the Division of Employment Security agreed with the deputy's conclusions and determination.
Crank then appealed to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission), which reversed the decision of the Appeals Tribunal, finding that the problem that led to Crank's discharge was a defect in the machine, and not safety violations. Employer IXL then filed a petition for judicial review pursuant to the provisions of § 288.210, RSMo 1978, which request was joined in by the Division of Employment Security. The circuit court, after reviewing the record, found that there was no competent or substantial evidence to support the Commission's finding that Crank's discharge resulted from "a defect in the machine and the failure of the employer to keep the machine in a safe operating condition," and also found that there was competent and substantial evidence in the record to show that Crank was discharged for misconduct. Based on those findings, the circuit court reversed the decision of the Commission.
On appeal, the Commission contends that the circuit court erred by exceeding the scope of its review in substituting its judgment for that of the Commission on disputed evidentiary matters, which amounted to a de novo review.
On appeal in unemployment compensation cases, we review the decision of the Commission, not the judgment of the circuit court. Div. of Emp. Sec. v. Labor & Ind. Rel. Com'n, 625 S.W.2d 882, 884 (Mo.App.1981). The reviewing court must consider all of the evidence, along with all reasonable inferences therefrom, in a light most favorable to the Commission's ruling and we will not set aside that ruling unless it is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence. Division of Employment Sec. v. Labor and Indus., 617 S.W.2d 620, 622 (Mo.App.1981).
The only evidence in the case came from the testimony of Crank, and from Sam Hector, plant superintendent for IXL, which was introduced at the appeals hearing. Hector testified that Crank was discharged for "[c]areless and unsafe operation of his machine." When asked what was careless and unsafe, Hector said, "He was letting the handles go through the machine...
To continue reading
Request your trial