HUBBELL MECHANICAL SUPPLY CO. v. Lindley
351 S.W.3d 799
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Lindley, a Hubbell Mechanical sales representative for about 2.5 years, was discharged on May 15, 2009 for allegedly submitting an inaccurate quote and for purported failure to follow instructions.
- Lindley filed for unemployment benefits; initial determination disqualified him for misconduct connected with work.
- Appeals Tribunal credited Lindley’s claim that he was told he was being terminated due to lack of work but found he did commit misconduct by sending an improper quote contrary to Hubbell’s orders.
- The Commission remanded on February 24, 2010, citing a severely defective October 9, 2009 transcript with extensive unintelligible portions, directing a new evidentiary hearing before the Division.
- A second hearing was held June 1, 2010; the Appeals Tribunal found Lindley was discharged on May 15, 2009, but not for misconduct connected with work, and the Commission adopted these findings.
- Employer sought reconsideration; the Commission denied, and Hubbell appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand for a new hearing due to transcript deficiencies was proper | Employer: remand was improper; no due diligence shown by Lindley to cure transcript defects. | Lindley: remand necessary under statute to permit full, complete record. | Remand proper to secure a complete record. |
| Whether excluding the first hearing transcript at the second hearing violated rights | Employer: transcript admissibility under 288.190.2 and 8 CSR 10-5.015(10)(B) should be allowed. | Claimant: new hearing required; transcript exclusion not prejudicial; admissibility discretionary. | No abuse of discretion; exclusion proper; rights protected by remand. |
| Whether Lindley was disqualified for misconduct connected with work | Employer: evidence showed willful violation of orders; constitutes misconduct. | Lindley: credible testimony that he did not fax the quote; no misconduct. | Not disqualified; evidence does not prove misconduct by a preponderance. |
| Whether the credibility determinations were supported by competent substantial evidence | Employer: the Appeals Tribunal miscredited employer witness and relied on Lindley’s credibility. | Court defers to Commission on credibility and weighing conflicting evidence. | Credibility determinations supported; deference to Commission affirmed. |
| Whether the Commission acted within its statutory powers on remand and record handling | Employer: remand exceeded authority by excluding prior transcript and relying on new record. | Commission’s remand and record rules authorized by statute to ensure a complete record. | Within statutory power; remand affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bayne v. Our Little Haven, 109 S.W.3d 230 (Mo.App.2003) (remand to cure transcription deficiencies to allow meaningful review)
- Gordon v. Labor and Indus. Rel. Comm'n, 723 S.W.2d 903 (Mo.App.1987) (extensive unintelligibles requiring remand for a new hearing)
- Weinbaum v. Chick, 223 S.W.3d 911 (Mo.App.2007) (comparison to remand procedure and review of record)
- Jackson v. State, 514 S.W.2d 532 (Mo.1974) (due diligence in perfecting tape-recorded transcripts; burden on appellant)
- Sartori v. Kohner Props., Inc., 277 S.W.3d 879 (Mo.App.2009) (credibility and weighing conflicting evidence)
- Mauller v. Div. of Empl. Sec., 331 S.W.3d 714 (Mo.App.2011) (deference to Commission on witness credibility)