Tenge v. WASHINGTON GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC., 333 S.W.3d 492

Background

Tenge, a maintenance technician, was employed by Washington Group International since 1997 and subject to safety and injury reporting policies.
Employer's policy required immediate reporting of injuries and de-energizing equipment generating 50+ volts before work; PPE was mandated for energized work.
On March 12, 2009, Tenge failed to report a coworker’s non-injury finger injury, received a written warning, and acknowledged the policy.
On October 21, 2009, during conduit installation, coworker Romano was shocked; the panel was not de-energized and PPE was not used, but claimant did not de-energize or report immediately.
Investigation found failure to de-energize and wear PPE violated safety policies and injury-reporting policy; Romano reported the injury the next day.
Claimant was discharged for safety-policy violations; deputy denied benefits; Appeals Tribunal and Commission affirmed disqualification for misconduct; claimant appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was claimant discharged for misconduct connected with work?	Tenge asserts no willful misconduct; misjudgment and lack of injury negate willfulness.	Employer argues claimant knowingly violated safety and reporting rules; prior warning supports misconduct.	No: conduct was not willful; remand for proper fact-finding on willfulness.
Does violation of safety rules alone establish misconduct?	Violation alone does not prove willful misconduct; factors show lack of intent.	Violating safety rules is a relevant factor indicating misconduct connected with work.	Violations are relevant but not dispositive; need willfulness and connection to employment duties.
Did claimant knowingly disregard the employer's rules?	Claimant believed there was no injury and lacked intent to violate rules.	Claimant knowingly failed to de-energize and failed to report per policy.	Not demonstrated; facts show poor judgment, not deliberate knowing violation.
Did the prior warning affect the misconduct determination?	Prior warning alone is not determinative of willfulness.	Written warning shows defendant's intent to enforce safety rules.	Prior warning supports a finding of policy awareness but does not prove willful misconduct.
What standard governs review of commission findings on misconduct?	Court should assess whether findings support misconduct as a matter of law.	Standard relies on substantial evidence; deference to commission on facts.	Court conducts de novo review of law; upholds if facts support misconduct; here not clearly proven.

Key Cases Cited

Frisella v. Deuster Elec., Inc., 269 S.W.3d 895 (Mo. App. 2008) (burden shifting; law requires substantial evidence for facts)
McClelland v. Hogan Personnel, LLC, 116 S.W.3d 660 (Mo. App. 2003) (work-rule violation not dispositive; factors for misconduct)
Wieland v. St. Anthony's Medical Center, 294 S.W.3d 77 (Mo. App. 2009) (willful disregard requires awareness and intentional violation)
Pemiscot Hosp. v. Missouri Labor & Indus. Rel., 897 S.W.2d 222 (Mo. App. 1995) (definition of misconduct and intent considerations)
Duncan v. Accent Marketing, LLC, 328 S.W.3d 488 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (prior violation and warnings considered; not dispositive)
Finner v. Americold Logistics, LLC, 298 S.W.3d 580 (Mo. App. 2009) (deliberate safety-rule violation supports misconduct)
Koret of California, Inc. v. Zimmerman, 941 S.W.2d 886 (Mo. App. 1997) (awareness of policies and purpose; conduct must be deliberate)
Hurlbut v. Labor & Indus. Rel. Com'n, 761 S.W.2d 282 (Mo. App. 1988) (policy knowledge and noncompliance context)
Continental Research v. Labor & Indus. Rel., 708 S.W.2d 749 (Mo. App. 1986) (foundation for interpreting misconduct standards)