Mathews v. B AND K FOODS, INC.
332 S.W.3d 273
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Claimant, floral manager at B and K Foods, was terminated for submitting falsified timecard records showing she was clocked in while away for a personal errand.
- Employer provided payroll documents and handbook excerpts indicating that falsification or breach of trust could lead to termination.
- Division disqualified Claimant from unemployment benefits for misconduct; Tribunal and Commission affirmed.
- Claimant admitted familiarity with the no-lunch sheet practice and that she used it to receive pay for time spent away from the store.
- Claimant testified she left the store July 7, 2010 for personal matters and later filed a no-lunch sheet; she disputed the extent of the time away.
- The court upheld the Commission’s finding that the conduct was willful misconduct in violation of employer policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether falsifying time records constitutes misconduct | Mathews contends conduct was not willful misconduct. | Division/Employer argues falsification shows willful disregard of policy. | Yes; constitutes misconduct. |
| Whether claimant knew of and violated a specific employer policy | Claimant claims no policy violation was willful given her understanding. | Employer showed claimant was familiar with no lunch sheet and enforcement duties. | Yes; willful violation supported by evidence of knowledge. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support the Commission's misconduct finding | Evidence insufficient to prove willful misconduct. | Record shows repetitive, deliberate use of no-lunch sheets for pay while away from store. | Sufficient competent evidence supports misconduct finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Aaron's Automotive Products, 232 S.W.3d 616 (Mo.App. S.D.2007) (review of evidence; error to find misconduct absent awareness of policy)
- Scrivener Oil Company, Inc. v. Division of Employment Security, 184 S.W.3d 635 (Mo.App. S.D.2006) (employer bears burden to prove misconduct)
- Kennett Board of Public Works v. Shipman, 15 S.W.3d 792 (Mo.App. S.D.2000) (historical practice evidence required to negate misconduct claim)
- West v. Baldor Elec. Co., 326 S.W.3d 843 (Mo.App. E.D.2010) (willful violation requires knowledge and deviation from policy)
- Dixon v. Stoam Industries, Inc., 216 S.W.3d 688 (Mo.App. S.D.2007) (standard for reviewing Commission decisions under §288.210)
- Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. banc 2003) (weight of evidence and credibility are for the court on appeal)
- McClelland v. Hogan Personnel, L.L.C., 116 S.W.3d 660 (Mo.App. W.D.2003) (law governing application of evidence to findings on misconduct)