Webster v. Potlatch Forests, Inc.

• Decision Date: 12 December 1947
• Docket Number: 7391
• Citation: 68 Idaho 1,187 P.2d 527
• Parties: WEBSTER v. POTLATCH FORESTS, Inc
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

187 P.2d 527

68 Idaho 1

WEBSTER v. POTLATCH FORESTS, Inc

No. 7391

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 12, 1947

Appeal from Industrial Accident Board.

Affirmed.

Elder &amp Elder and Sidney E. Smith, all of Coeur d'Alene, for appellant.

The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order are not supported by substantial, competent evidence and should be set aside and annulled. Young v. Ind. Acc. Comm. 38 Cal.App.2d 250, 100 P.2d 1062; Stroscheim v. Shay, 63 Idaho 360, 120 P.2d 267; Bower v. Smith, 63 Idaho 128, 118 P.2d 737; Watkins v. Cavanagh, 61 Idaho 720, 107 P.2d 155.

That the claimant was guilty of insubordination and misconduct which disqualifies claimant for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Act. 146 A.L.R. 243; 1945 Session Laws, Idaho, Ch. 203, Page 256.

"Insubordination" of employee imports wilful disregard of express or implied directions and refusal to obey reasonable orders, and when established, warrants his discharge. Oehme v Whittemore-Wright Co., 279 Mass. 558, 181 N.E. 733, 735; Campion v. Boston & M. R. R., 269 Mass. 579, 169 N.E. 499, 500; Words and Phrases, 4th Series 2-380.

Robert Ailshie, Atty. Gen., Sherman F. Furey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen and W. B. Bowler, of Boise, for respondent.

To constitute "misconduct" within the meaning of the Unemployment Compensation Law excluding employees discharged for misconduct from unemployment benefits, the act or acts for which the employee was discharged must show a wanton or wilful disregard of the employer's interests, a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, or a wrongful intent. 43-2408(e), I.C.A., S.L. '45, pp. 356, 357; M. F. A. Milling Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 350 Mo. 1102, 169 S.W.2d 929, 146 A.L.R. 239; Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 296 N.W. 636; Boynton Cab Co. v. Schroeder, 237 Wis. 264, 296 N.W. 642; 146 A.L.R. 243.

The claimant's refusal to use a new device, to the use of which he did not feel he could adapt himself, and which he considered dangerous to himself and his crew and which he felt would hamper his efficiency rather than increase it, did not show such wilful and wanton disregard of the interests of his employer as to constitute misconduct within the meaning of the Unemployment Compensation Law. 43-2408(e), I.C.A., S.L. '45, pp. 356, 357; M. F. A. Milling Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 350 Mo. 1102, 169 S.W.2d 929, 146 A.L.R. 239; Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 296 N.W. 636; Boynton Cab Co. v. Schroeder, 237 Wis. 264, 296 N.W. 642; Boynton Cab Co. v. Giese et al., 237 Wis. 237, 296 N.W. 630.

Holden, Justice. Givens, Miller and Hyatt, JJ., concur. Budge, Chief Justice, dissenting.

OPINION

Holden, Justice.

This is an appeal from the Industrial Accident Board affirming the decision of the appeals examiner awarding benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law.

It appears claimant had been in the sawmill business for twenty-six years prior to his discharge from Potlatch Forests, Inc., the last nineteen of which had been spent in the Clearwater mill of appellant located at Lewiston, Idaho. Prior to claimant's discharge, which occurred August 21, 1946, appellant installed on the "rig" operated by claimant, a new system of controlling saw guides. The new system consisted of an electrical device which permitted the sawyer to control the saw guide by electrically controlled buttons placed on top of the levers operated by the sawyer. Prior to the installation of the electrical control the saw guide was raised and lowered at the direction of the sawyer by the tail sawyer, and at the time of the installation of the electrical device claimant was head sawyer.

Following his discharge claimant filed an initial claim for unemployment compensation benefits. Later, to wit, August 28, 1946, an initial determination was made by the claims examiner for the Unemployment Compensation Division holding "claimant to be entitled, if otherwise eligible, to a weekly benefit amount of $ 18 up to a total amounting to $ 306", benefit year to begin August 22, 1946. September 28, 1946, appellant requested a redetermination, whereupon the claims examiner, October 3, 1946, reversed his initial determination and held claimant to be ineligible to receive benefits by reason of his having been "Discharged for misconduct in connection with employment", with the following remark added: "Refused to operate new electrical saw guides. Suggest claimant appeal."

October 10, 1946, claimant appealed to the appeals examiner. December 5, 1946, a hearing was had before such examiner. January 1, 1947, the appeals examiner decided claimant's actions were not to be deemed misconduct and, therefore, claimant should be paid benefits for those weeks for which he had filed claims. Thereafter, to wit, February 24, 1947, appellant filed a claim for review by the Unemployment Compensation Division of the Industrial Accident Board. March 21, 1947, the matter was heard. June 26, 1947, the Board made and filed its findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered thereon the following order: "Wherefore, it is hereby ordered that the decision of the Appeals Examiner, W. Clyde Williams, rendered and approved January 1, 1947, holding the claimant, Rome Webster, to be eligible to receive benefits be and the same is hereby affirmed."

The appeal to this court is from the above quoted order.

Appellant contends the Board's "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order are not supported by substantial, competent evidence and should be set aside and annulled." Therefore, we turn to the record, where it appears the following testimony was adduced at the hearing before the Board.

Claimant testified on direct examination:

"Q. Will you state your full name, please? A. Rome Webster.

"Q. And how old are you, Mr. Webster? A. I am 57 years old.

"Q. And have you been working for Potlatch Forests? A. Yes, Sir.

"Q. How long have you worked for Potlatch Forests? A. I have worked for Potlatch Forests, that is this plant here, nineteen years and a couple of weeks. Since August 5, 1927, I think.

"Q. Just go ahead and explain -- tell us how it is you feel you don't like the new so-called change. A. The reason I don't like it is that it is a very big job -- those carriages are steam driven and they have valve controls which are very sensitive, and you have got to watch every move, -- you've got to keep your eyes constantly on those things and that's why I don't want to take on extra duties. I'm afraid I will make a mistake and hurt somebody else or myself. I classify it is dangerous. It also keeps you from getting quality -- watching the grades and the logs, you have to watch the log -- trying to out-guess nature, and you can't do that and be bothered with a lot of other things.

* * * *

"Q. In your years of experience, you have trained several tail operators, have you? A. Yes.

"Q. In your opinion, how long does it take to train a tail sawyer to do the job he was required to do before these new buttons were installed? A. Take a man that wanted the job and wanted to work, in a day and a half he could handle the job. If they don't want to work, they don't want to learn.

"Q. In your opinion, was the safety of all the men who are on the rig cutting these logs improved -- that is, were their lives in less danger by the installation of these new buttons than before? A. Well, their lives were in more danger with the new buttons.

"Q. You felt it was not a safety measure? A. No, for this reason -- if you want me to go on.

"Q. I want your reason. A. The sawyer is responsible for the setter and the tail-sawyer. You have to watch very closely not to catch the tail-sawyer and have a slab that would come in and the end come back and go through him. I have rammed them through the bandmill at the Potlatch Forests by trying to watch something else, run a slab through the bandmill, -- that's what happens when you are trying to watch something else. The cleaner and the tail-sawyer is the man you have to watch. You have to see he sets it up properly and that it takes the lumber properly.

* * * *

"Q. In discussing the installation of these new electric buttons, have you heard any of the sawyers make complaints? A. Yes.

"Q. Are their complaints the same as yours? A. The same as mine only some of them worse. Some see it worse than I do.

"Q. Did you ever at any time see a man -- or have you ever heard a man say he liked the new operation? A. Not until this morning on the witness stand, except Mr. Peterson on the witness stand in the former hearing. He said before he didn't like them.

* * * *

"Q. At the time Mr. Andrew asked you to use the saw, or to use the new guide buttons, what did you reply to him? A. I explained to him that I thought it was dangerous and that it would hamper production, and I was asking him how much more wages we would get for doing the extra work, and he said, none, and he went away. That is the first time, and then they installed the guide sometime a week or so afterwards. I don't know how many days, and so I tried to use it two or three times but it was bawling me up so badly I decided I would not use it that way for fear I would have an accident. Then he came in a second time and he asked me if I was going to use it and I said, not unless I get paid extra for it, and he said, all right, we will have to get someone else, and I said, all right, do as you like, but I am still getting out the work the way I hired out to do and the way I am getting paid to do.

* * * *

"Q. Why, instead of asking Mr. Andrew for an increase in wages because of the added burden that was thrust upon you, why didn't you ask for that through the union? A. I wasn't a member of the union, and I had understood by others that the union...