TAMKO BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., Employer-Appellant v. DANIEL PICKARD, Claimant-Respondent, and MISSOURI DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
443 S.W.3d 68
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Tamko Building Products, Inc. discharged Daniel Pickard in March 2013 for safety-rule violations after a Feb. 26, 2013 incident at the Joplin facility.
- Employee had 19 years of service with no prior rule violations.
- Employee used a safety gate workaround by covering an electric eye to clear a jam, compromising safety protocol.
- The employer assessed 50 points for crossing the safety fence, blocking the eye, removing a hard hat, and discarding waste.
- The Appeals Tribunal found no misconduct; the Commission affirmed, leading to this appeal by the Employer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pickard’s actions constituted misconduct connected with work under § 288.050.2. | Pickard knowingly violated safety rules; his conduct shows intent and willful disregard. | Employer argues conduct was willful, deliberate, or a clear violation of safety rules. | No misconduct; not willful or deliberate under the evidence; benefits affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seck v. Department of Transp., 434 S.W.3d 74 (Mo. banc 2014) (definite standard for reviewing misconduct findings; deference to Commission on credibility and factual determinations)
- Finner v. Americold Logistics, LLC, 298 S.W.3d 580 (Mo. App. 2009) (limits on review; credibility and evidence respect in findings of misconduct)
- McClelland v. Hogan Personnel, LLC, 116 S.W.3d 660 (Mo. App. 2003) (willful/disregard and intent elements in misconduct)
- Butrick v. Peterbilt of Springfield, Inc., 373 S.W.3d 473 (Mo. App. 2012) (repeated violations and driving-related misconduct considerations)
- Ernst v. Sumner Group, Inc., 264 S.W.3d 669 (Mo. App. 2008) (distinguishes categories of misconduct; emphasis on express rules vs. universal standards)
- Robinson v. Courtyard Mgmt. Corp., 329 S.W.3d 736 (Mo. App. 2011) (definition of willful misconduct; conduct under stress scenarios)
- Fendler v. Hudson Services, 370 S.W.3d 585 (Mo. banc 2012) (misconduct requires intent; single act can be misconduct)
- Richardson v. Division of Employment Sec., 361 S.W.3d 425 (Mo. App. 2011) (case-by-case factual analysis for misconduct)
- Seck v. Department of Transp., 434 S.W.3d 74 (Mo. banc 2014) (reiterated standard for review and evidence-oriented inquiry)
- Barnes v. Jasper Products, L.L.C., 418 S.W.3d 530 (Mo. App. 2014) (discussion of contextual factors in misconduct determinations)