Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, Second Division
APPEAL FROM THE LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION.
For Claimant/Appellant: Raymond Lampert, LAMPERT LAW OFFICE, L.L.C., Springfield, Missouri.
For Respondent Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations: Christine Lesicko, Jefferson City, Missouri.
GARY W. LYNCH, J.
Robert Urban (" Claimant" ) appeals from the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's (" Commission" ) order denying his claim for unemployment benefits following his termination from Regal Beloit America, Inc. (" Regal" ). In his sole point relied on, Claimant contends that the Commission erred in concluding that he committed misconduct, in that the decision was not supported by sufficient competent evidence. We disagree and affirm the Commission's decision.
Factual and Procedural Background
Claimant was an electrician at Regal. On September 9, 2014, Claimant met with his acting supervisor and expressed dissatisfaction about being assigned to work in " Die Cast." Specifically, Claimant stated that he was " tired of working in f***ing Die Cast." Claimant then clocked out and left, leaving a note requesting vacation time posted to a chalkboard. Regal policy required employees to have vacation leave approved in advance. After he left, Tami Frazee, the human resources manager for Regal, called and notified Claimant via voicemail that he was discharged because he had " walked off the job without permission."
Claimant applied for unemployment benefits, and Regal protested. Claimant's initial application was denied, and he appealed to the Appeals Tribunal (" Tribunal" ). Claimant and Frazee both testified before an appeals referee. Claimant offered a different timeline of events than that set forth above, but the Tribunal found that Frazee's version of events was more credible. The Tribunal also found that Regal expected its employees to refrain from leaving during their scheduled shifts without permission and that Claimant walked out during his shift without permission because he was disgruntled with the work he was being asked to perform. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that Claimant's actions amounted to " misconduct" as defined by section 288.030.1(23)(a).
Claimant appealed the Tribunal's decision to the Commission. The Commission reviewed the whole record and concluded that the Tribunal's decision was " supported by competent and substantial evidence." The Commission adopted the Tribunal's decision as the Commission's decision in this matter. This appeal timely followed.
Standard of Review
" The findings of the [C]ommission as to the facts, if supported by competent and substantial evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of the appellate court shall be confined to questions of law." Section 288.210. This Court may modify, reverse, remand for rehearing, or set aside the decision of the Commission if we conclude that " there was no sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the award." Section 288.210. " On matters of witness credibility and resolution of conflicting evidence, the appellate court defers to the Commission's determinations." Ayers v. Sylvia Thompson Residence Ctr., 211 S.W.3d 195, 198 (Mo.App. 2007). " Questions of law are reviewed independently, and the appellate court is not bound by the Commission's conclusions of law or its application of law to the facts." Id. The determination of whether an employee's actions constitute misconduct connected with work is a question of law, which we review de novo. Duncan v. Accent Mktg., LLC, 328 S.W.3d 488, 491 (Mo.App. 2010).
" Though the claimant has the burden of proving his right to receive unemployment benefits in the first instance, the employer bears the burden of proving that the applicant is ineligible because he was discharged for misconduct connected with his work." Seck v. DOT, 434 S.W.3d 74, 82 (Mo. banc 2014). Section 288.030.1(23)(a) defines " misconduct" as " [c]onduct or a failure to act demonstrating . . . a knowing violation of the standards which the employer expects of his or her employee[.]" Regal, therefore, was required to prove (1) Claimant's ...