*1
Brett S. WHOLESALE, ELECTRICAL Employer-Appellant, Idaho, Department State Labor, Respondent. No. 29861. Idaho, Supreme Court of Pocatello, September Term.
Dec.
The Industrial Commission affirmed the eli- gibility determination on the basis that Har- ris was discharged not for misconduct in cоnnection with The deci- sion of the Industrial sup- Commission is ported by evi- is, therefore, dence and affirmed.
I. AND
FACTUAL PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND EWS is an electrical distributor and has throughout warehouses located southern Ida- ho Wyoming. and western At the time of his discharge, Harris was a truck driver for EWS, driving five times a week between Pocatello, Blackfoot, Falls, Idaho Rexburg Jackson, and also Wyoming. EWS’ written required employ- handbook that all operated company ees who motor vehicle have a valid driver’s license and maintain a driving acceptable to EWS’ insurance signed carrier. Harris the handbook and generally was aware of his policy. driving personal While during vehicle off-work in hours March Harris re- a moving ceived violation traffic citation for traveling per 45 miles hour in per a 35 mile hour zone. Harris then received traffic January citation on driving while personal hours, during vehicle off-work failing for stop stop sign. at a The next day Harris mentioned at work that he had received a traffic immediately citation. EWS notifiеd its insurance carrier and the carrier responded by denying coverage for appeals Harris for what the examiner deter- “exceeding eligibility mined was for standard insurance, per driver established criteria.” discharged January on Davis, Falls, Bart M. appellant. job required since maintenance of insur- through ance EWS’ carrier order to con- Wasden, Hon. Attorney Lawrence G. Gen- driving company tinue vehicles. eral, Boise, respondent. filed for benefits Department the Idaho of Labor and TROUT, Justice. eligibility received an determination that Employer, Electrical Supply Wholesale found he was not (EWS), Inc. challenged an affirmative connection with and was eligibility awarding unemploy- determination therefore for benefits. EWS’ aс- (Har- ment claimant Brett Harris chargeable count was also held experi- ris) through Department the Idaho rating of Labor. purposes. timely ence EWS filed Department m. protest of the decision to telephonic hearing was held Labor and a ANALYSIS appeals before an examiner. The examiner although had cause to determined employer discharges an When *3 Harris, by a discharge it had not established is for unem employee, the worker of the that Harris preponderance evidence is “unemployment if not ployment benefits discharged for misconduct in connection was left his due the fact that he by employment, as defined Idaho with the good connected voluntarily without cause 72-1366(5), § IDAPA Code 09.01.30.375 and he was dis employmеnt, or that with his appealed Idaho law. the matter ease EWS charged connection with for misconduct Commission, to the which conduct- Industrial 72-1366(5). § The employment.” I.C. a ed de novo review of the record case. by prepon a proving misconduct burden of subsequently The affirmed the Commission strictly falls on the of the evidence derance decision, appeals finding that examiner’s also met, not employer, and the burden is where although may have felt it had reason- EWS claimant. must be awarded to the benefits Harris, discharging it grounds able had Middleton, 22, 25, City Roll v. 105 Idaho of by preponderance not a of the demonstrated (1983); 721, v. St. Ma 665 724 Parker P.2d discharging evidence that its reason for him 419, 415, 614 P.2d Plywood, ries 101 Idaho misconduct in with his constituted connection (1980). 955, of “preрonderance A the 959 employment. subsequently filed EWS this that, weighed evidence” is evidence when appeal. it, convincing has opposed with that more greater prob force from which results a
II. Seeds, Inc., ability v. of truth. Cook W. Field (1967). 675, 681, 407, P.2d 413 91 Idaho 429 OF STANDARD REVIEW disputed рarty has the nature Neither considering appeal When an Therefore, separation. the is of Harris’ issue Commission, the is lim Industrial this Court grounds not whether had reasonable reviewing questions ited law. Idaho of Harris, discharging but rather whether V, Values, § Pimley Const. Art. v. Best discharge the for the amounted to reasons Inc., 78, 432, 434, 132 Idaho 974 P.2d 80 employ in connection with his “misconduct” (1999). findings The Commissions of fact unemploy ment that can be denied such he appeal they will not be disturbed on where previously Court has ment benefits. This by comрetent supported are substantial and separate and distinct. declared the two issues 72-732; § evidence. I.C. Welch v. Cowles Falls, 891, Beaty City 110 Idaho of Co., 361, 363, 1372, Publ’g 127 Idaho 900 P.2d (1986). 892, 1151, P.2d 1152 Misconduct 719 (1995). conflicting 1374 Where evidence is willful, disregard a is defined as intentional substantial, presented supported by that is interests; a vio employer’s of the deliberate evidence, competent findings by reached rules; disregard employer’s or a lation of the regard must Commission be sustained of of behavior which em the standards may less of whether this Court have reached right expect employees. ployer has a of its Spruell v. a conclusion. Allied different 544, 78 Idaho Johns v. S.H. Kress Corp., 117 Idaho 787 P.2d Meadows (1957). 548, 217, This standard P.2d 219 307 (1990). 72-1366(5) 263, § Idaho Code 265 IDAPA has been codified under ineligible unemploy a claimant renders 09.01.30.275(2), provides: which claimant ment benefits when the disqualifies a claimant for that Misconduct in connection was must connected with the claim- be employ an Whether of employment and involve one ant’s is a fac ees behavior constitutes misconduct following: upheld will unless tual determination that be Employer’s Interest. competent Disregard of by a. supported not substantial and willful, disregard of intentional Dist. No. A evidence. Folks v. Moscow Sch. (1997). employer’s interest. 642 129 Idaho 933 P.2d b. Violation of Rules. A him question Reasonable render uninsurable. The of employer’s
deliberate violation of the expectation objec- whether is reasonable rules. tively reasonable in particular gen- case is fact, erally question and the Commis- Disrеgard c. Behavior. Standards of regard sion’s determination in will alleged this not be If the involves a misconduct appeal supported on disregard disturbed if it a standard of behavior employer right which the has evidence Folks, expect employees, of his there is no record. See 129 Idaho at requirement that the claimant’s con- glance, policy at 647. At P.2d first willful, intentional, duct or deliber- a driving its drivers maintain *4 subjective ate. The claimant’s state of acceptable appears to its carrier insurance to mind is irrelevant. The test for mis- expectation. generally be a reasonable How- in conduct “standard of behavior ever, to meet the standard-of-behavior test cases” is as follows: misconduct, discharge an provе and for “em- i. Whether the claimant’s conduct ployers expectations ordinarily are reason- fell below the behavior standard of only they where able have been communicat- by expected employer; the and employee.” v. ed to the Folks Moscow Sch. 281, 833, 838, Dist. No. 129 Idaho 933 P.2d expecta- ii. employer’s Whether the (1997). Thus, employer 647 objectively in an must tion was reasonable the by particular preponderance case. the of the show evidence expеctations that it communicated to its the case, solely In discharged this for claimant, or expectations that its “flow nor- failing insurability through to his maintain mally” employment relationship. the company’s the insurance carrier. There is Id. personal no suggesting evidence that Harris’ off-work traffic citations a deliberate involved The Industrial determina- Commission’s violation of EWS’ rules or constituted will- expectation objec- tion that EWS’ was not disregard of interests. EWS’ ful/intentional it tively reasonable was not bеcause ade- Thus, the third area of misconduct —actions quately supported communicated to Harris is which fell the standard behavior below of competent evidence. Al- right expect EWS had a to be the —seems though may generally have communi- only applicable. one expectations insurability its cated of to Har- Under the standard of behavior through a policy ris written contained its test, prove by preponderance EWS must handbook, company employee nеver the told (1) the evidence that claimant’s conduct fell specifically him what he needed to do to expected by below the standard of behavior insurable. was never in- remain Harris (2) employer; expectations and that its that traffic issued to him in formed citations objectively particular were reasonable in this during off-work personal vehicle hours Publ’g v. case. See Cowles Welch 127 through render him would uninsurable (1995). 900 P.2d employer discharged. cause him to case, require In making their there is “nо insurability policy communication of its employee’s disregard ment that of the enough provide may adequate have been expected behavior standard of grounds discharge upon Harris reasonable willful, subjectively must inten have been his failure to maintain insurance tional Id. or deliberate.” However, company’s insurance carrier. unemployment purposes, order Industrial found The Commission qualify discharge employee of an as expectation objectively that EWS’ was nоt being deny as to “misconduct” such because, although reasonable in this case benefits, unemployment the commu- claimant clearly company expected to remain Harris specific higher and more insurable, nication standard is the record it found no evidence in necessary simply to than would'be dis- showing company what that the ever communicat precisely charge ed to what conduct would for cause. such, agrees the Com-
As
the Court
with
not dis-
finding that Harris was
mission's
attorney at law. IV. Plaintiff, Bar, Idaho State CONCLUSION evi- There substantial Miner, E. Defendant. Clinton support the Industrial dence finding Harris was not Commission’s No. 28372. for misconduct in connection employment permit sufficient to deni- Supremе Court of Idaho. benefits. The decision al April awarding un- of the Industrial Commission to Harris is affirmed. ORDER *5 KIDWELL, and Justices EISMANN A CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT concur. BURDICK proceedings before with attachments Board of the Idaho Professional Conduct SCHROEDER, dissenting. Chief Justice filed Plaintiff March State Bar was resрectfully I dissent from the Court’s and Recom- 2002 which contains an Order A opinion. who cannot be insured driver concluding Defendant Attor- that mendation his is insurance carrier ney Idaho Rules of Professional violated Maintaining driving a record that is useless. [communiсation], [diligence], 1.4 Conduct 1.3 is a condition that flows 1.16(d) reasonably prac- steps to take [failure normally There from upon ter- protect ticable Ghent’sinterests to to communicate that con- should no need to representation], [fаilure 3.2 mination of However, dition. in this that condition case with inter- expedite litigation consistent was communicated. As notes: the Court 8.4(d) client], preju- [conduct ests written handbook re- justice] with dicial the administration of to quired employees operated that all who Attorney’s representa- regard to Defendant company motor vehicle have a valid driv- Quinto. dis- tion of Fred The recommended driving er’s license and maintain a pursuant is ciplinary action Public Censure acceptablе to EWS’ insurance carrier. 506(d). to I.B.C.R. gen- and was signed handbook review, the finds that Defen- After Court erally employer’s policy. of his aware Miner, Attorney, Clinton E. violated dant any say It is under reasonable standard of Professional Conduct and above Rules рrofessional driver must maintain a sanction of Public Censure recommended driving job. his record that allows him to do Therefore, appropriate. good appear- cause con- ing, employment. He had con- nection with his and the IT HEREBY ORDERED IS in him trol оver the conduct that resulted Attorney, Court finds that Defendant Clinton job. being disqualified doing He Miner, practice of law E. the course of violated condition respect to his of Idaho State employer. useless rendered himself Quinto representаtion of Fred violated He should not be entitled to [diligence], 1.3 Rules of Professional Conduct benefits. [communication], 1.16(d) take [failure 1.4 reasonably protect steps practicable upon repre- termination of chent’s interests sentation], htigation expedite 3.2 [failure