Introduction
Jacqueline Smith (Claimant) appeals the decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) which denied her unemployment compensation benefits after her termination by Delmar Gardens of Creve Coeur (Employer) for alleged misсonduct connected with her work. We affirm.
Background
Claimant worked as a housekeeper for Employer, a skilled nursing facility, be
On April 14, 2012, Claimant clocked into work at 7:00 a.m. On that day, Claimant’s task was to clean 28 to 24 rooms during her shift. At approximately 8:45 a.m. on April 14, Jessica Hayes (Hayes), assistant administrator for Employer, nоticed problems on the floors of some of Claimant’s assigned rooms, including a cheerio, piece of Easter grass, crumbs, a tag, and dirt. At approximately 3:00 p.m., Hayes noticed that those problems still existed and questioned Claimant as tо whether Claimant had cleaned all of her assigned rooms. After Claimant answered that she had, Hayes then questioned Claimant as to whether she had mopped and vacuumed her assigned rooms. Claimant did not respond or provide a reason why the floors were not clean, but instead apologized.
Hayes then walked Claimant to each of the nine rooms in question and pointed out the problems.
Employer terminated Claimant on April 16, 2012, because Claimant had not cleaned her entire assignment on April 14. Claimant filed her claim for unemployment benefits with the Missouri Division of Employment Security on April 16, 2012. Thе Deputy who considered Claimant’s claim determined that Claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with work, because she did not clean a majority of her assigned rooms on April 14, 2012, and she did not complete the corrections needed as instructed by Employer. Therefore, the Deputy found that Claimant was disqualified from waiting week credit and benefits.
Claimant appealed, and the Appeals Tribunal affirmed the decision, asserting that “[Claimant’s failure to clean the rooms [after Hayes pointed them out to her] constitutes an intentional and willful disregard of a standard of behavior the employer had the right to expect.” Therefore, the Appeals Tribunal found Employer had met its burden of proving that the misconduct was connected with work. On further appeal, the Commission unanimously affirmed, finding the decision of the Appeals Tribunal was supported by competent and substantial evidence. This appeal follows.
Standard of Review
Our review of the Commission’s dеcision is governed by Section 288.210,
(1) That the Commission acted without or in excess of its powers;
(2) That the decision was procured by fraud;
(3) That the facts found by the Commission do not support the award; or
(4) That there was no sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the award.
Id. (quoting Section 288.210). With regards to an award of unemployment benefits, the question as to whether the award is supported by competent and substantial evidence is determined by the evidence in the context of the whole recоrd. Quik ’N Tasty Foods, Inc. v. Div. of Employment Sec.,
Discussion
In her sole point on appeal, Claimant argues that the Commission erred in detеrmining that Claimant was terminated from employment due to misconduct connected with her work. She argues that the alleged misconduct consisted only of poor workmanship, which does not rise to the level of statutory misconduct necessary to deny unemployment compensation benefits. Claimant argues, therefore, that the Commission erred in finding that there was sufficient competent evidence to conclude she was terminated for statutory misconduct. We disagree.
Genеrally, a claimant seeking unemployment benefits has the burden of showing that she is entitled to them. Croy v. Div. of Employment Sec.,
The state of Missouri defines “misconduct” as follows:
An act of wanton or willful disregard of the employer’s interest, a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules, a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his or her employee, or negligence in such a degree of recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interest or of the employee’s duties and obligations to the employer.
Seсtion 288.030(23), RSMo. (Supp.2012). Thus, the act of an employee deliberately disregarding an employer’s reasonable directive can constitute misconduct, and would allow a claimant to be denied unemployment compensation benefits. Dixon v. Stoam Indus., Inc.,
Here, in determining that there was competent and substantial evidence to find misconduct, the Commission agreed with the Aрpeals Tribunal’s finding that “[Hayes’] testimony [regarding April 14, 2012] was clearer and more specific than that of [C]laimant, and therefore was more
Claimant correctly points out thаt “whether an employer has solid grounds to terminate an employee is not the same issue as whether the former employee qualifies for compensation.” Frisella v. Deuster Elec., Inc.,
Claimant relies on Duncan v. Accent Marketing, LLC to address the differences between misconduct and poor workmanship.
In Duncan, however, the circumstances were different from those in the current case in that the employer in Duncan instructed the claimant to follow the general employment policies, of which the claimant was alreаdy aware. Id. Here, while Claimant apparently did fail to follow Employer’s general policies by not thoroughly vacuuming and mopping the floors, her deficient performance did not end there. In contrast to the general instructions given in Duncan, Emрloyer specifically instructed Claimant here to re-clean the nine rooms in question. Fifteen minutes later, Claimant informed Hayes that Claimant had re-cleaned the rooms, and she clocked out thereafter. Employer checked the nine rooms and, with the exception of the one room that had been cleaned, Employer maintains that Claimant falsely represented that she re-cleaned the other eight rooms.
Employer’s instructions here were more akin to those in Dixon v. Stoam Industries, Inc.,
As in Dixon, it was reasonable for Employer here to request that Claimant clean any areas that Employer found to be inadequately cleaned. Therefore, Claimant’s one instance of inaction regarding that reasonable instruction cоnstituted statutory misconduct. Finner,
In sum, the Commission chose to believe that Employer’s testimony was more credible and that, despite Claimant’s denial of the fact, Hayes showed Claimant all nine rоoms in question and Claimant re-cleaned only one of them. This finding is supported by sufficient competent evidence on the whole record, thus we are bound to consider only the facts the Commission found most credible, even if the record сould have supported the opposite finding. See Berwin,
Conclusion
We affirm the decision of the Commission.
Notes
. Claimant alleged that she was only shown five rooms.
. All statutory references are to RSMo. (2000), unless otherwise indicated.
. We emphasize that the law does not restrict unemployment compensation benefits to only employees who suffered no-fault termination, i.e. mass layoffs. Rather, there is room in the statute for compensation for those who have been terminated because of poor judgment or poor performance so as to not punish workers who are terminated because they are unable to do the job according to their employer’s standards.