Case Title: Wyoming Dept. of Employment, Unemployment Ins. Com'n v. SF Phosphates, Ltd.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1999-01-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
Wyoming Dept. of Employment, Unemployment Ins. Com'n v. SF Phosphates, Ltd.1999 WY 8976 P.2d 199Case Number: 98-70Decided: 01/26/1999Supreme Court of Wyoming
 
WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 
COMMISSION, Appellant Respondent,

v.

SF PHOSPHATES, LTD., 
Appellee Petitioner.

Appeal from the District 
Court of Natrona County. The Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, 
Judge.

William U. Hill, 
Attorney General; and William L. Weaver, Special Assistant Attorney 
General.

Bruce S. Asay of 
ASSOCIATED LEGAL GROUP, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Before 
LEHMAN, C. J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN & TAYLOR,* 
JJ.

* Retired November 2, 
1998.

MACY, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant Wyoming 
Department of Employment, Unemployment Insurance Commission (the commission) 
granted unemployment benefits to Greg Beauchamp (the claimant). Appellee SF 
Phosphates, Ltd. petitioned the district court for a review of the commission's 
decision, and the district court reversed. The commission appealed to the 
Wyoming Supreme Court.

[¶2]      We reverse the 
district court's order and affirm the commission's 
decision.

ISSUE

[¶3]      The commission 
poses the following issue for our review:

Was the decision 
of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in accordance with law pursuant to 
Wyoming Statute § 27-3-311(a)(vii) and supported by substantial evidence as 
required by Wyoming Statute § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A) and (E)?

FACTS

[¶4]      The claimant was 
employed by SF Phosphates for approximately ten years. In February 1997, 
employees of SF Phosphates reported to the management that the claimant had made 
threatening statements against a former SF Phosphates manager and a current SF 
Phosphates employee. The claimant admitted making the statement about the former 
manager, but he denied making the statement about the current employee. SF 
Phosphates investigated the allegations and ultimately discharged the 
claimant.

[¶5]      The claimant 
filed a claim for unemployment benefits. After his claim was denied on the 
grounds that he was discharged for misconduct connected with his work, the 
claimant appealed to the Department of Employment, Employment Resources Division 
(the division). An appeals examiner for the division held an evidentiary hearing 
on April 15, 1997. The examiner subsequently issued a decision, concluding that 
the claimant was discharged but not for misconduct connected with his work. The 
examiner, accordingly, awarded benefits to the claimant and ordered that those 
benefits would be charged against SF Phosphates' unemployment insurance 
account.

[¶6]      SF Phosphates 
appealed from the examiner's decision to the commission. The commission 
considered SF Phosphate's appeal at its June 18, 1997, meeting and affirmed the 
examiner's decision. SF Phosphates filed a petition for a review of the 
commission's decision with the district court. The district court concluded that 
the commission's decision was not consistent with the applicable law and 
reversed. The commission subsequently filed a notice of appeal with the Wyoming 
Supreme Court. 

STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

[¶7]      When this Court 
reviews an agency's decision, we do not accord special deference to the district 
court's determination. Shaffer v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and 
Compensation Division, 960 P.2d 504, 506 (Wyo. 1998); Wyoming Insurance 
Department v. Avemco Insurance Company, 726 P.2d 507, 509 (Wyo. 1986). Instead, 
we review the case as if it had come directly to this Court from the agency. Id. 
Judicial review of administrative decisions is limited to a determination of the 
matters set out in WYO. STAT. ANN. § 16-3-114(c) (Michie 1997). W. R. A. P. 
12.09(a); Everheart v. S & L Industrial, 957 P.2d 847, 851 (Wyo. 
1998).

[¶8]      We review an 
agency's findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard. DeWall 
v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Safety and Compensation Division, 960 P.2d 502, 503 (Wyo. 1998). This Court examines the entire record to determine whether 
substantial evidence supports the agency's findings. Id. Substantial evidence is 
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind may accept in support of an agency's 
conclusions. Id. We will not substitute our judgment for that of the agency when 
substantial evidence supports its decision. Id. We do not, however, grant the 
same deference to an agency's conclusions of law. Nelson v. Sheridan Manor, 939 P.2d 252, 255 (Wyo. 1997). We affirm an agency's conclusions of law when they 
are in accordance with law. Corman v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' 
Compensation Division, 909 P.2d 966, 970 (Wyo. 1996). Unemployment benefit cases 
which involve the contention that an employee was discharged for misconduct 
connected with his work normally present mixed questions of law and fact. 
Wyoming Department of Employment, Division of Unemployment Insurance v. Rissler 
& McMurry Company, 837 P.2d 686, 688 (Wyo. 1992); Employment Security 
Commission of Wyoming v. Western Gas Processors, Ltd., 786 P.2d 866, 870 (Wyo. 
1990).

DISCUSSION

[¶9]      The commission 
determined that the claimant was discharged from his employment with SF 
Phosphates but that he did not commit misconduct associated with his work. The 
commission ruled, therefore, that the claimant was entitled to receive 
unemployment benefits. The commission contends that its decision was in 
accordance with the law and was supported by substantial evidence and that the 
district court erred by reversing its decision.

[¶10]   WYO. STAT. ANN. § 27-3-311(a)(vii) 
(Michie 1997) states that an individual shall be disqualified from receiving 
unemployment benefits if the department finds that he was "discharged from his 
most recent work for misconduct connected with his work." We approved the 
commission's definition of misconduct in Safety Medical Services, Inc. v. 
Employment Security Commission of Wyoming, 724 P.2d 468 (Wyo. 1986). That 
definition states:

"Misconduct 
under the Wyoming Employment Security Law means generally an act of an employee 
which indicates a disregard of (1) the employer's interests or (2) the commonly 
accepted duties, obligations and responsibilities of an employee. This would 
include carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to reveal 
willful intent or an intentional disregard of the employer's interests or of the 
employee's duties and obligations to his employer. Inefficiency or failure in 
good performance as the result of inability or incapacity; ordinary negligence 
in isolated instances or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not 
deemed to be misconduct within the meaning of the Law."

724 P.2d  at 472. 
See also Barker v. Employment Security Commission of Wyoming, 791 P.2d 583, 
585-86 (Wyo. 1990). In order for an employee's conduct to be considered 
misconduct which would require a denial of his claim for unemployment benefits, 
it is essential that the employee's conduct evince a disregard of the standards 
of behavior that the employer has a right to expect from its employee. Western 
Gas Processors, Ltd., 786 P.2d  at 873.

[¶11]   The record shows that, on February 
1, 1997, the claimant attended a shift-change meeting at his place of 
employment. During the meeting, he made a statement about a retired SF 
Phosphates manager who was featured on the front page of the newspaper. The 
claimant stated that the only justice for some people is a bullet in the head 
but that a bullet in the head would be too good for the former manager; he 
should die slowly. The claimant also reportedly stated that he ought to shoot a 
current SF Phosphates employee. Neither the former manager nor the current 
employee whom the claimant supposedly threatened was present when the statements 
were made.

[¶12]   SF Phosphates conducted an 
investigation into the incident. After it concluded its investigation, SF 
Phosphates discharged the claimant. SF Phosphates stated in the termination 
letter that the claimant was being discharged because he had threatened a 
current SF Phosphates employee with bodily harm. SF Phosphates claimed that the 
threat against the current employee was exacerbated by the claimant's threat 
against the retired manager.

[¶13]   Brian Lake was the only witness who 
testified on behalf of SF Phosphates at the evidentiary hearing. He had 
investigated the claimant's alleged threats. He was not, however, present at the 
shift-change meeting, and he did not hear the claimant make the 
threats.

[¶14]   The claimant admitted that he made 
the statement about the former manager when he saw his photograph on the front 
page of the newspaper. He stated, however, that he did not intend for his 
statement to be a threat and that he did not intend to act upon the statement. 
The claimant unequivocally denied threatening a current SF Phosphates employee. 
SF Phosphates refused to reveal the identity of the threatened employee, but the 
claimant stated that, on the basis of the SF Phosphates investigation, he 
believed the employee was the human resources manager. The claimant stated that 
he told the investigators he had not seen the human resources manager in 
weeks.

[¶15]   The commission found that the 
claimant made the statement about the retired manager. The commission concluded 
that, although the statement was ill-advised, it was not a threat and did not 
constitute misconduct connected with the claimant's employment. The commission 
also determined that:

With regard to 
the alleged threatening statement against the human resources manager, we 
conclude that the claimant's first hand, under oath, testimony denying having 
made such a statement is more persuasive than the hearsay evidence and testimony 
presented by the employer on that issue.

The commission 
ruled that the claimant was discharged from his employment with SF Phosphates 
but that he did not commit misconduct connected with his 
work.

[¶16]   The commission's decision was in 
accordance with law and was supported by substantial evidence. We agree that the 
claimant's statement about the former manager was ill-advised; however, the 
manager no longer worked at SF Phosphates and was not present when the claimant 
made the statement. The claimant testified that he was simply making a comment 
about justice and did not intend to carry out his statement. The commission's 
findings that the claimant's statement was not an actual threat and that it did 
not constitute misconduct connected with his work were, therefore, supported by 
substantial evidence. Good faith errors in judgment are not considered to be 
misconduct that would result in a denial of unemployment benefits. City of 
Casper v. Wyoming Department of Employment, Unemployment Insurance Division, 851 P.2d 1, 4 (Wyo. 1993); Barker, 791 P.2d  at 586.

[¶17]   With regard to the claimant's 
alleged threat against the human resources manager, the commission was justified 
in accepting the claimant's first-hand testimony over the second-hand hearsay 
testimony presented by Lake on behalf of SF Phosphates. See City of Casper, 851 P.2d  at 4. The agency is charged with determining the credibility of the 
witnesses and the ultimate weight to be assigned to the evidence. Weidner v. 
Life Care Centers of America, 893 P.2d 706, 710 (Wyo. 1995). The claimant's 
adamant denial that he made a threat against the human resources manager 
constitutes substantial evidence to support the commission's determination. The 
commission appropriately held that, on the basis of these findings, the claimant 
was entitled to receive unemployment benefits.

[¶18]   SF Phosphates argues that the 
claimant's threats violated a company policy against violence and that the 
claimant was aware of the policy because he had previously been warned about 
making threats. Violation of a company policy may be considered misconduct 
sufficient to disqualify an employee from receiving unemployment benefits. 
Rissler & McMurry Company, 837 P.2d  at 689-90.

When an employer 
contends that violation of its rule constitutes misconduct, the employer bears 
the burden of establishing the existence of the rule and its violation. If the 
employer establishes these elements, the burden shifts to the employee to 
demonstrate either that the violation was justified or that the rule was 
unreasonable.

837 P.2d  at 690. 
A company policy against violence is obviously an admirable and understandable 
rule. SF Phosphates did not, however, establish the parameters of its policy 
against violence or that the claimant violated that policy. SF Phosphates 
cannot, therefore, rely upon that rationale to support a denial of unemployment 
benefits to the claimant.

[¶19]   The district court's order is 
reversed, and the commission's decision is affirmed.