Rasmussen v. Gem State Packing Co.

• Decision Date: 07 March 1961
• Docket Number: No. 8928,8928
• Parties: Lynn F. RASMUSSEN, Claimant for Unemployment Security Benefits, and Employment Security Agency, Respondents, v. GEM STATE PACKING COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 90

360 P.2d 90

83 Idaho 198

Lynn F. RASMUSSEN, Claimant for Unemployment Security Benefits, and Employment Security Agency, Respondents, v. GEM STATE PACKING COMPANY, Appellant.

No. 8928.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

March 7, 1961.

Hawley & Hawley, Boise, for appellant.

Frank L. Benson, Atty. Gen., and Warren Felton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boise, for respondents.

SMITH, Justice.

Respondent Lynn F. Rasmussen is designated as claimant, respondent Employment Security Agency as the agency, and appellant Gem State Packing Company as the employer.

The employer, a meat packer, on November 17, 1959, discharged claimant because of alleged misconduct in connection with his employment. Claimant thereupon filed with the agency a claim for unemployment benefits under the employment security law. The agency's claims examiner determined that claimant was ineligible for benefits, holding that his discharge for misconduct was proper. Claimant's request for a redetermination resulted in reversal of the initial determination.

The employer protested such redetermination, by appeal to the Industrial Accident Board. The Board, by its order, affirmed the redetermination of the agency's appeals examiner, from which order the employer appealed.

The employer urges error of the Board in affirming the appeals examiner's redetermination and in failing to deny benefits to claimant because of misconduct in connection with his employment, and asserts insufficiency of the evidence to support the Board's order of affirmance.

The record shows that in the normal operation of the employer's dressing process of freshly slaughtered beeves, a metal shackle and chain, weighing about 29 pounds, was used in connection with an overhead trolley in the handing of each carcass. Claimant, at the start of each dressing process, disengaged the shackle and chain from the carcass as it was lowered from the trolley. He then placed the shackle apparatus onto a low wooden platform, which protected the cement floor, situate to the immediate rear of his working station, and the shackle apparatus again was put to use by other workmen. After so disengaging and disposing of the shackle apparatus, claimant then partially dressed the carcass by removing certain portions of the hide.

A metal barrel of 55 gallon capacity, some 40 inches in height from the floor, was placed at a point some five feet to the left of claimant, into which other workmen tossed or placed scrap material, such as the feet, certain bones, and other waste removed from the carcass. The barrel when filled with scrap was carted to the employer's rendering room, in which was situate a bone crushing or shredding machine, an enclosed metal apparatus in which sharp blades rotated at high speed, powered by a 40-horse power electric motor. The scrap, upon being conveyed into this machine, became quickly reduced to shredded material.

The record also shows that a metal object, such as a 29 pound shackle and chain, if conveyed into this powerful, swiftly revolving machine, would create a highly dangerous situation, dangerous to life and limb of persons in the immediate vicinity, as well as destructive to property.

The record further shows, upon the occasion of the alleged misconduct, that claimant did not place the shackle and chain onto the board platform at the immediate rear of his working station, in accordance with the usual, normal practice of his particular dressing operation; instead, he threw or tossed the shackle apparatus to his left at and to the metal barrel at such a sufficient height that the shackle and a portion of the chain landed inside the barrel, with a part of the chain hanging outside over the barrel's rim.

Claimant had been employed at the employer's packing plant continuously for a period in excess of four years. The record satisfactorily shows that he was an experienced employee and knew the various operations at the plant, including the processing of the scrap material through the crushing or shredding machine; and that by virtue of his longevity of service and experience he well the dangerous potentialities, should a shackle apparatus find its way into the crushing machine.

Claimant attempts to excuse his act of throwing the shackle apparatus at and into the scrap barrel, and his omission in not removing it or causing it to be removed, on various theories: First, that he had never been instructed not to throw the shackle into the scrap barrel, which theory is reduced to an absurdity in the light of his longevity of service, his experience, and knowledge of the various plant operations. Second, that he knew of other instances when shackles had been thrown into the scrap barrel; this theory, based on his direct examination before the claims examiner, claimant entirely refuted when on cross examination he admitted that such statement was not based upon any fact within his knowledge, and was shown to be based upon pure conjecture; and Third, admitting that he made no attempt whatever to remove the shackle and chain or cause it to be removed from the barrel, or to warn of its presence therein, claimant attempted to execuse such omission on the theory that he felt he could rely upon a co-employee, working in the immediate area, to remove the apparatus from the scrap container; claimant first stated that he saw his fellow worker 'pick up' or take hold of the exposed portion of the chain, but didn't see him put the...