Levesque v. Hi-Boy Meats, Inc.

Decision Date28 March 1974
Docket NumberNo. 11322,HI-BOY,11322
Citation95 Idaho 808,520 P.2d 549
PartiesMarcel LEVESQUE, SSA 538-30-4280, Claimant-Appellant, v.MEATS, INC., Employer, and Department of Employment, Defendants-Respondents.
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

A. L. Lyons, Boise, for claimant-appellant.

R. LaVar Marsh, Raymond Malouf, Asst. Attys. Gen., Dept. of Employment, Boise, for defendants-respondents.

SHEPARD, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by claimant Marcel J. Levesque from an order of the Idaho Industrial Commission denying unemployment insurance benefits to him on the ground that he was discharged for misconduct in connection with his employment. That misconduct was claimant's physical beating of one George High, inflicting physical harm on High and requiring his hospitalization for ten days. We affirm the order of the Industrial Commission.

In January of 1970, George High and his wife contracted to purchase a meat packing plant in Emmett, Idaho. In January of 1971 claimant Levesque and one Novak became employees at the plant. In April of 1971 Levesque and Novak contracted with the Highs to purchase an interest in the 1970 purchase contract and in the business property. That contract by Levesque, Novak and the Highs provided for incorporation of the business, the transfer of all interests acquired under the contracts to the corporation, equal issuance of stock, and the escrowing and pledging of the Levesque and Novak corporate shares until payment of the contract balance.

The business thereafter was conducted in the corporate name. All three men worked at the meat packing plant and drew a weekly salary. It was agreed that profits would be divided among them at year end.

The Industrial Commission found that High, Levesque and Novak regarded themselves as corporate directors, as well as employees of the corporation. The Commission also found that by mutual agreement High was considered to be president of the corporation, that High was considered to be the 'boss,' that Levesque and Novak took directions from him, that High had acted in the hiring and firing of at least one other employee, and that High possessed such authority by agreement or acquiescence of Levesque and Novak.

The findings of fact of the Industrial Commission, if supported by substantial, competent evidence, are binding on this court. I.C. §§ 72-724, 72-732, 72-1368(i). Toland v. Schneider, 94 Idaho 556, 494 P.2d 154 (1972); Alder v. Mountain States Tel. and Tel., 92 Idaho 506, 446 P.2d 628 (1968). The above findings of fact of the Industrial Commission are supported by substantial competent evidence and will not be disturbed by this court.

The record reveals that there was considerable friction between High and Levesque and Novak. There was disagreement regarding the business practices, and the payment of a portion of Levesque's salary. This friction culminated in a physical altercation between Levesque and High on April 3, 1972. The Commission found, albeit on conflicting evidence, that following a heated discussion between the men, High attempted to leave the packing plant, but Levesque blocked his exit. High attempted to force his way out of the building. Levesque struck High, who then ran out of the building. Levesque chased and assaulted High, who was physically injured and was hospitalized for ten days.

On April 27, 1972, High, his wife, and their attorney purported to hold a special stockholders' meeting, following which High wrote letters to Novak and Levesque purporting to remove them as directors of the corporation and terminating their employment. High testified that he sent the letters out of fear of further violence. After receiving the correspendence, claimant Levesque left the business premises, considered his employment terminated and filed a claim for unemployment benefits.

The matter was heard before an examiner, and thereafter, at a hearing before the Industrial Commission. The Commission made the above findings of fact and concluded that claimant was an employee of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Paullas v. Andersen Excavating
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • July 16, 1987
    ...97 Idaho 158, 540 P.2d 1337 (1975); Gradwohl v. J.R. Simplot Company, 96 Idaho 655, 534 P.2d 775 (1975); Levesque v. Hi-Boy Meats, Inc., 95 Idaho 808, 520 P.2d 549 (1974). In my view, the majority, in disregard of the Commission's findings, is making its own findings as they interpret the f......
  • Hernandez v. Triple Ell Transport, Inc.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 27, 2007
    ...of fact are supported by substantial competent evidence, they will not be disturbed by the court on appeal. Levesque v. Hi-Boy Meats, Inc., 95 Idaho 808, 520 P.2d 549 (1974); Gradwohl v. J.R. Simplot Co., 96 Idaho 655, 534 P.2d 775 (1975); Dean v. Dravo Corp., 97 Idaho 158, 540 P.2d 1337 (1......
  • Avery v. B & B Rental Toilets, 11917
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • May 4, 1976
    ...so that it now appears as I.C. § 72-1366(e).2 Clay v. Crooks Industries, 96 Idaho 378, 529 P.2d 774 (1974); Levesque v. Hi-Boy Meats, Inc., 95 Idaho 808, 520 P.2d 549 (1974); Toland v. Schneider, 94 Idaho 556, 494 P.2d 154 (1972); Alder v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., 92 Idaho......
  • Graybill v. Swift & Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • October 14, 1988
    ...in scope. If the findings are supported by substantial competent evidence they will not be disturbed on appeal. Levesque v. Hi-Boy Meats, Inc., 95 Idaho 808, 520 P.2d 549 (1974). However, we are not bound by conclusions of law drawn by the Commission; an order of the Commission must be set ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT