Prock v. Hartville Feed, LLC

• Decision Date: 10 January 2012
• Docket Number: No. SD 31310.,SD 31310.
• Parties: Russell PROCK, Claimant–Appellant, v. HARTVILLE FEED, LLC, Employer–Respondent,andMissouri Division of Employment Security, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

356 S.W.3d 839

Russell PROCK, Claimant–Appellant,
v.
HARTVILLE FEED, LLC, Employer–Respondent,andMissouri Division of Employment Security, Respondent.

No. SD 31310.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

Jan. 10, 2012.

[356 S.W.3d 841]

Russell Prock, Hartville, MO, pro se.

Ninion S. Riley, Jefferson City, MO, for Respondent, Missouri Division of Employment Security.

DON E. BURRELL, Presiding Judge.

Russell Prock (“Claimant”) appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) denying him unemployment compensation benefits under section 288.050.1(1) ¹ because he voluntarily left his employment as a maintenance worker with Hartville Feed, L.L.C. (“Employer”) without good cause.² Because the Commission correctly determined that Claimant did not act in good faith in deciding to quit—an essential element of good cause—we affirm.

Applicable Principles of Review

“This Court may modify, reverse, remand, or set aside the Commission's decision only when: (1) the Commission acted ultra vires; (2) the decision was procured fraudulently; (3) the facts found by the Commission do not support the award; [or] (4) there was not sufficient competent evidence to support the award.” Sartori v. Kohner Prop., Inc., 277 S.W.3d 879, 882 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). “Whether the award is supported by competent and substantial evidence is judged by examining the evidence in the context of the whole record.” Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 223 (Mo. banc 2003); see also Mo. Const. art. V, sect. 18; section 287.495.1. We defer to the Commission's witness credibility determinations and the weight to be given to the evidence. Scrivener Oil Co., Inc. v. Crider, 304 S.W.3d 261, 266 (Mo.App. S.D.2010). Whether the reason for quitting employment constitutes “good cause” is a question of law we review de novo. Quik ‘N Tasty Foods, Inc. v. Division of Emp't Sec., 17 S.W.3d 620, 624 (Mo.App. W.D.2000).

Background

Employer protested Claimant's request for weekly benefits on the basis that Claimant was considered “a Voluntary Quit[.]” A Division deputy determined that Claimant was conditionally disqualified from receiving benefits because he left work “voluntarily without good cause attributable to his work or employer on [October 1, 2010]” in that “he walked off the job in the middle of his shift. [C]laimant abandoned the job.” ³ Claimant appealed the deputy's determination, and a hearing before the Appeals Tribunal was held in January 2011.

The Hearing Claimant's Testimony

Claimant testified that he had worked at his job since August 1990; Employer acquired

[356 S.W.3d 842]

the business in July 2004. Claimant worked “[a]bout 36” hours a week and earned $10 per hour. He quit his job on October 1, 2010. Claimant quit without giving notice to Employer because he “felt like [he had] been pushed and run down in the ground.” His problems with Employer started after he suffered a work-related back injury in “February.” Thereafter, he could not seem to please his supervisor, Mark Heppner. Claimant described as follows an incident that occurred shortly before he quit.

That particular day I don't really know what all was actually said, I felt real bad that day. I know [Heppner] was very upset. He hollered at me, had me go over and talk to him. He was very upset and loud talking—he said go home—I went in and clocked out, went and got into my truck and he came out the back door running and says you're not fired, he says come in here and talk to me some more. Then he wants—was talking about the welding on the trucks and this and that and I told him the welding he wanted done I couldn't learn in 24 hours like he wanted, so he just says well that's it. He'd write that down as a not want to.

Claimant testified that Heppner sent him home, then called him back the next day to set up a meeting for the following day. Claimant met at the designated time with Heppner and Jody Flaro, Employer's president and managing member.

At the meeting they told me they had three jobs lined up for me, they picked the easiest one out for me, gave me a cut in—a dollar cut in pay, had me sign some papers (unintelligible). Anyway, had—had me (unintelligible) papers or else they'd write me down as a voluntary quit, so those were filled out and they went through the records and whatnot, what they wanted me to do, made sure I understood that and then sent me to work.

Claimant understood from the meeting that he was demoted “from being maintenance guy to cleaning guy” because he “didn't check the oil in the Jeep,” a task included in his checklist of duties. He had previously discussed with Heppner the fact that it was impossible for him to complete all of his listed duties, but no changes were made.

Claimant left work and quit his job after his meeting with Heppner and Flaro because he was depressed and did not feel well. He had actually been prescribed medication for depression the day before he quit work. He did not tell Employer that he had been diagnosed as suffering from depression.

Flaro's Testimony

Flaro testified that he did not have with him the information about Claimant's injury but that Claimant's “assessment of around February, 2010 seem[ed] right.” After that injury, Claimant was released back to full duty “around July.” Flaro said,

Despite being released for full work duty there were still a number of items on [Claimant]'s daily checklist which he didn't feel comfortable doing so consequently the job checklist wasn't getting done and the items that weren't getting done, some of them had to do with climbing which is what he said he didn't feel comfortable with. Having said that there were a number of items that weren't getting performed, checking the oil in the Jeep was one of them that he was physically capable of doing, he was trained on how to perform[;] he just chose not to get it done at the end of the day.

Although some items might not get done every day, they “should get done at some point over the course of the next week.”

[356 S.W.3d 843]

Flaro cited checking the Jeep's oil as an item that had not been completed “for months.”

At their October 1st meeting with Claimant, he and Heppner discussed “a new job checklist” with Claimant.

[T]he whole purpose of going through that was to set [Claimant] up for success so that he could actually get the job checklist done. [Claimant] states that it was a demotion, it was more of an accommodation if anything which we didn't have any—any requirement to do given that he was released for full duty that we were accommodating him because he didn't feel comfortable and we respected that. So we changed the job checklist which ended up having a lot of cleaning duties assigned to it. What we did was we simplified it as much as we could to allow him to complete the job checklist.

Claimant's pay would be changed from $10 to $9 per hour, but Claimant had “the opportunity to earn $40 per week of performance pay and all he had to do to do that was to complete the [simplified] items on the job checklist.” Flaro said, “Eighty percent of our employees receive performance pay every week for completing their job checklist.” Claimant had not been receiving performance pay because he had not been completing his checklist. Claimant had generally worked 36–40 hours per week and would be permitted to work up to 40 hours per week to complete his new checklist. Flaro reasoned that if Claimant worked 40 hours a week and earned his performance pay, he would actually make more money than he had previously been making.

He and Heppner asked Claimant if he was trained, able, and willing to do the items on the revised checklist. Claimant indicated that he was trained, able, and willing to do the work, with the exception of cleaning the production area because that would require him to work past 5:00. It was then agreed that this particular item would be removed from Claimant's duties and a new checklist omitting that task would be prepared. Flaro agreed that Claimant seemed to be depressed, and Flaro stated, “It was clear to me that [Claimant] hasn't had his heart in the job for a long time.” By the end of their meeting, Flaro understood that Claimant “would do the new job as outlined.” Flaro later learned that Claimant was observed turning in his keys after lunch.

Heppner's Testimony

Heppner initially testified that he thought Claimant's back injury had occurred sometime before late 2006 and before Heppner started working as Claimant's supervisor. As far as he could recall, Claimant had already been...