Title: Barker v. Employment Sec. Com'n of Wyoming

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Barker v. Employment Sec. Com'n of Wyoming1990 WY 51791 P.2d 583Case Number: 89-222Decided: 05/15/1990Supreme Court of Wyoming
KENNETH BARKER, ANTON 
BOCEK, GEORGE BUSZKIEWIC, BEN CAMPBELL, KENNETH D. COPP, MICHAEL DOYLE, EDWARD 
FEASTER, CRAIG HANSON, DAVID JELLY, JOHN JOHNSON, WAYNE McKENZIE, ROBERT 
NIELSON, EDGAR SADLER, CHARLES SMITH, AND EDWIN WARTENSLEBEN, 

APPELLANTS 
(PETITIONERS),

v.

EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 
COMMISSION OF WYOMING, AND BIG HORN COAL COMPANY, APPELLEES 
(RESPONDENTS).

Appeal from the District 
Court, Sheridan County, Gary P. Hartman, J.

Michael K. 
Shoumaker of Shoumaker & Murphy, Sheridan, and Robert M. Weaver of 
Longshore, Nakamura & Quinn, Birmingham, Ala., for 
appellants.

Joe Scott, Sr. 
Asst. Atty. Gen., Casper, for appellee, Employment Sec. Com'n of 
Wyoming.

Hyden F. Heaphy, 
Jr. of Burgess & Davis, Sheridan, and Jeffrey T. Johnson and Sandra R. 
Goldman of Holland & Hart, Denver, Colo., for appellee, Big Horn Coal 
Co.

Before 
CARDINE, C.J., and THOMAS, URBIGKIT, MACY and GOLDEN, JJ.

MACY, Justice.

[¶1]      Appellants appeal 
from the district court's decision affirming Appellee Employment Security 
Commission of Wyoming's (the ESC) denial of unemployment compensation benefits. 
The ESC denied Appellants' claim for benefits because it determined that 
Appellants were discharged for misconduct during a strike against Appellee Big 
Horn Coal Company (BHCC).

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

[¶3]      Appellants raise 
the following issue:

     Is there substantial 
evidence to support the conclusion of the Wyoming Employment Security Commission 
that the Appellants engaged in misconduct within the terms of Wyo. Stat. § 
27-3-311 so as to justify their disqualification from unemployment compensation 
benefits?

[¶4]      Pursuant to a 
strike against BHCC, Appellants and other employees of BHCC participated in a 
demonstration on November 11, 1987, at the main entrance of the BHCC mine, which 
was located near Sheridan, Wyoming. Although the demonstration was peaceful, a 
convoy of vehicles containing replacement workers was delayed from entering the 
mine because the individual leading the convoy felt that demonstrators were 
blocking the entrance of the mine. The gate to the mine had been padlocked by 
someone other than BHCC or its nonstriking employees, and the entrance was 
further obstructed by a pickup and demonstrators who stood or walked on the road 
leading to the mine. The sheriff told the leader of the convoy that he should 
not attempt to enter the mine through the main entrance because the 
demonstrators stated that they would not allow entry. The convoy finally entered 
the mine through an alternative access.

[¶5]      When the strike 
ended in 1988, Appellants sought reinstatement as BHCC employees. BHCC refused 
to rehire Appellants because it claimed that Appellants blocked the main 
entrance to its mine during the November 11, 1987, demonstration. BHCC based its 
assertion on photographs and video recordings taken at the demonstration and on 
observations made by BHCC employees.

[¶6]      Appellants 
subsequently applied for unemployment compensation benefits. The chief appeals 
examiner for the ESC conducted a hearing and determined that Appellants were 
eligible for benefits. BHCC appealed the determination because it asserted that 
Appellants were discharged for misconduct and, therefore, were not entitled to 
benefits.

[¶7]      The ESC found 
that Appellants were discharged for misconduct because they "actively engaged in 
blocking the access road and gate to the mine for an extended period of time," 
and that such conduct disqualified them from receiving unemployment compensation 
benefits.1 Appellants appealed the ESC's 
decision to the district court, and the district court affirmed the agency's 
denial of benefits. The district court stated that substantial evidence existed 
to support the ESC's findings. This appeal followed.

[¶8]      Our review of the 
ESC's determination is subject to the standards enumerated in W.R.A.P. 12.092 and Wyo. Stat. § 16-3-114(c) 
(1977). Doidge v. State Board of Charities and Reform, 789 P.2d 880 (Wyo. 1990); 
Employment Security Commission of Wyoming v. Western Gas Processors, Ltd., 786 P.2d 866 (Wyo. 1990). Section 16-3-114(c) provides:

     To the extent 
necessary to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall 
decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory 
provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency 
action. In making the following determinations, the court shall review the whole 
record or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of 
the rule of prejudicial error. The reviewing court shall:

(i) Compel agency action 
unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and

(ii) Hold unlawful and 
set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to  be:

(A) Arbitrary, 
capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with 
law;

(B) Contrary to 
constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity;

(C) In excess of 
statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory 
right;

(D) Without observance of 
procedure required by law; or

(E) Unsupported by 
substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing 
provided by statute.

[¶9]      When we review an 
agency decision which a party claims is not supported by substantial evidence, 
we determine whether the decision is supported by "such relevant evidence as a 
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Such evidence 
may be less than the weight of the evidence but cannot be contrary to the 
overwhelming weight of the evidence." Big Piney Oil & Gas Company v. Wyoming 
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 715 P.2d 557, 561-62 (Wyo. 1986) (citations 
omitted).

[¶10]   The ESC disqualified Appellants 
from benefit entitlement pursuant to Wyo. Stat. § 27-3-311 (1977). Subsection 
(c)3 of that section 
provided:

     An individual shall be 
disqualified from benefit entitlement and shall forfeit all accrued benefits if 
he was discharged from his most recent work for misconduct connected with 
his work, fraud or receipt of disqualifying income.

(Emphasis 
added.) We have previously utilized the following definition of 
misconduct:

"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."

Safety Medical 
Services, Inc. v. Employment Security Commission of Wyoming, 724 P.2d 468, 472 
(Wyo. 1986), quoted in Roberts v. Employment Security Commission of Wyoming, 745 P.2d 1355, 1358 (Wyo. 1987). None of the parties seem to dispute that an 
employee who blocks the main entrance to a mine site may be disqualified from 
benefit entitlement. We agree that such conduct indicates a disregard for BHCC's 
interests and, therefore, amounts to misconduct under § 27-3-311, Roberts, 745 P.2d 1355, and Safety Medical Services, Inc., 724 P.2d 468. The remaining 
question is whether the record contains substantial evidence supporting the 
ESC's conclusion that Appellants blocked BHCC's mine entrance.

[¶11]   Our examination of the hearing 
transcript reveals the existence of evidence which a reasonable mind would 
accept as adequate to support the conclusion that Appellants blocked the main 
entrance of BHCC's mine on November 11, 1987. Employees of BHCC identified 
Appellants as demonstrators who blocked the mine entrance for an "extended 
period of time." In addition, the sheriff and undersheriff testified at the 
hearing that they believed the demonstrators were attempting to block the main 
entrance to the mine and that the sheriff advised the leader of the convoy not 
to attempt entry. Thus, we hold that the ESC's decision disqualifying Appellants 
from benefit entitlement on the basis of their misconduct is supported by 
substantial evidence.

[¶12]   Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1 Wyo. Stat. § 27-3-404(b) 
(1977) provides in pertinent part:

Upon review or appeal and 
based on evidence previously submitted or upon additional evidence it may direct 
be taken, the commission may affirm, modify or reverse the findings and 
conclusions of the appeal tribunal.

2 W.R.A.P. 12.09 provides 
in pertinent part:

The 
review shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to 
the record as supplemented pursuant to Rule 12.08, W.R.A.P., and to the issues 
raised before the agency. The court's review shall be limited to a determination 
of the matters specified in § 16-3-114(c).

3 Subsection (c) was 
amended effective July 1, 1989.