Sheets v. Labor and Indus. Relations Commission, WD
| Decision Date | 18 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Parties | Arleetia E. SHEETS, Appellant, v. LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, and Division of Employment Security of the State of Missouri, and Kinder Care Nursing Home, Respondents. 31957. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Dana Katheryn Kaiser, Legal Aid of Western Missouri, Public Counsel, Kansas City, for appellant.
Kevin Mark Hare, Public Counsel, Labor & Ind. Rel., Jefferson City, Sharon Ann Willis, Division of Emp. Sec., Kansas City, for respondents.
Kinder Care Nursing Home, pro se.
Before KENNEDY, P. J., SOMERVILLE, C. J., and SHANGLER, J.
The plaintiff Sheets appeals the denial by the appeals referee of unemployment compensation for a period of four weeks. She was found eligible for benefits but was assessed a disqualification for four weeks on finding that the discharge from employment was for misconduct connected with her work. The Industrial Commission declined administrative review, thus we deem the decision of the appeals tribunal as that of the Industrial Commission for purpose of judicial review. Associated Grocers Company of St. Louis, Missouri v. Crowe, 389 S.W.2d 395, 397(1) (Mo.App.1965); § 288.200.1.
The merits of appeal relate to the jurisdiction of the appeals tribunal to enter the decision now on judicial review. The appeal questions the authority of an administrative appeals referee to set aside a decision already rendered, to readjudicate the evidence and find a decision anew.
The deputy, on the basis of the claim by the worker and the protest of the employer, made the determination that the claimant was entitled to unemployment compensation but was disqualified from benefits for four weeks because of work misconduct.
The claimant appealed that determination by the deputy to the administrative appeals tribunal. The referee conducted a hearing at which the claimant gave evidence, but the employer was absent. On March 11, 1977, the appeals tribunal reversed the deputy and found the claimant eligible for the full compensation benefits without any disqualification. The parties were duly notified of the decision of the appeals tribunal in the formal manner required by § 288.190.3. On March 21, 1977, the appeals referee ordered that the decision of March 11, 1977, be set aside and held for naught, and reset the cause for new hearing and decision. The pretext for the order was to allow the employer to give testimony antecedent to a final decision. The appeals referee reheard the cause and on May 27, 1977, affirmed the determination of the deputy to disqualify the claimant from benefits for a period of four weeks. The Industrial Commission declined administrative review. The administrative decision was affirmed on judicial review by the circuit court.
The adjudication of administrative appeals of disputed determinations of employment security claims is governed by § 288.190 and those regulations promulgated by authority of statute:
2. The manner in which disputed determinations ... shall be presented and the conduct of the hearings shall be in accordance with regulations prescribed by the division for determining the rights of the parties .... 1
3. (A)n appeals tribunal, after affording the parties reasonable opportunity for fair hearing, shall affirm, modify, or reverse the determination of the deputy, or shall remand the matter to the deputy with directions ... The parties shall be duly notified of an appeal tribunal's decision together with its reason therefor, which shall be deemed to be the final decision of the division unless within ten days after the date of notification or mailing of such decision further appeal is initiated pursuant to section 288.200. (Emphasis added)
An administrative tribunal is a creature of statute and exercises only that authority invested by legislative enactment. Soars v. Soars-Lovelace, Inc., 346 Mo. 710, 142 S.W.2d 866, 871(7-11) (1940). No term of subsection 3 of the statute, any more than any of the regulations promulgated by the Division under subsection 2 of the statute, legitimates an order of the appeals tribunal to set aside a decision officially rendered. The text of subsection 3 that:
"(t)he parties shall be duly notified of an appeals tribunal's decision together with its reasons therefor, which shall be deemed to be the final decision of the division ...."
means that the formal notice to the parties constitutes the final decision of the agency, and the clause which concludes the statutory subsection:
"unless within ten days after the date of notification or mailing of such decision further appeal is initiated (to the Industrial Commission) pursuant to section 288.200,"
does not continue the jurisdiction of the decision with the appeals tribunal for ten days but merely expresses the scheme of the unemployment security laws that an appeal to a superior administrative tribunal (in this case, the Industrial Commission within ten days from notification (§ 288.200.1) supersedes the operation of the subordinate adjudication. St. Louis County Transit Company v. Division of Employment Security, 466 S.W.2d 198, 202(1, 2) (Mo.App.1971).
The respondents liken the prerogative of an administrative appeals tribunal to the power of a circuit judge to reopen a judgment within the thirty days of entry. That authority rests on Rule 75.01, a promulgation of the Supreme Court with the force of statute. Mo.Const. Art. V, § 5 (1945 as amended). The appeals tribunal has no comparable vestment of authority. The power to readjudicate after final decision was withheld from the appeals tribunal although granted by the unemployment security laws to both a division deputy 2 and to the Industrial Commission. 3 The legislative intention to withhold that distinctive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jenkins v. Director of Revenue, No. WD
...acquired, the department retains jurisdiction over the case until a final judgment has been rendered. See Sheets v. Labor & Indus. Rel. Com'n, 622 S.W.2d 391 (Mo.App.1981). For a decision to be final, the agency must have arrived at a terminal, complete resolution of the case. Dore & Assoc.......
-
State ex rel. Missouri Health Care Ass'n v. Missouri Health Facilities Review Committee
...administrative agency has only such jurisdiction or authority as may be granted by the legislature. Sheets v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, 622 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Mo.App.1981); Soars v. Soars-Lovelace, Inc., 346 Mo. 710, 142 S.W.2d 866, 871 Missouri courts recognize that the time......
-
State ex rel. Marler v. State Bd. of Optometry, WD
...an administrative agency's authority to modify its findings of fact and conclusions of law. In Sheets v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, 622 S.W.2d 391, 394 (Mo.App.1981), we held that the agency could not modify its findings and conclusions once "reached and imparted to the liti......
-
State ex rel. Ryan v. Ryan
...rel. Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 858 S.W.2d 753, 756 (Mo.App.1993) (quoting Sheets v. Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, 622 S.W.2d 391, 394 (Mo.App.1981)). Acts taken by an administrative agency that exceed statutory authority, such as occurred here, are voi......