Case Name: James T. CAMPBELL, Appellant v. MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION and Heilig-Meyers, Appellees
Court: Mississippi Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 2000-07-18
Citations: 782 So. 2d 751
Docket Number: No. 1998-CC-01728-COA
Parties: James T. CAMPBELL, Appellant v. MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION and Heilig-Meyers, Appellees.
Judges: IRVING, LEE, PAYNE, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 782
Pages: 751–760

Head Matter:
James T. CAMPBELL, Appellant v. MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION and Heilig-Meyers, Appellees.
No. 1998-CC-01728-COA.
Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
July 18, 2000.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 19, 2000.
John M. Mooney Jr., Jackson, for appellant.
Mark D. Ray, Jackson, John Wesley Garrett Jr., Clinton, for appellees.

Opinion:
KING, P.J.,
for the Court:
¶ 1. James T. Campbell, terminated from his employment on March 13, 1998, sought and was denied unemployment benefits. He now appeals to this Court that denial of benefits
FACTS
¶ 2. On April 5, 1998, Campbell filed a claim for unemployment compensation. In making this claim, Campbell indicated he had been fired on March 13,1998.
¶ 3. When interviewed on this claim by Georgia Jones of the Employment Security Commission, Campbell indicated that there was a significant amount of racial discord in his work place. Campbell had attempted to discuss these matters with the manager to no avail. As a part of this interview, Campbell provided Jones with eleven pages of handwritten notations regarding work place problems.
¶ 4. On April 24,1998, Jones submitted a recommendation to Cynthia Downer, an Employment Security Commission Program Specialist, that Campbell's claim should be allowed, since there was no evidence of deliberate misconduct.
¶ 5. On April 29, Downer responded to Jones' recommendation, "Please obtain employer's rebuttal to the information provided by the claimant. Please note, that this employer is represented by ADP/ UCS, P.O. Box 6501, Diamond Bar, CA, 91765, and that ADP/UCS should be contacted if the local employer cannot or will not supply the necessary information."
¶ 6. On May 1, 1998, in response to Downer's memo, Jones wrote:
Please be advised that this employer was contacted on two previous occasions. Once on 4/24/98 at 1:40 PM, also on 4/29/98 at 1:80 PM Messages was left both time for the employer to return our call. He did not. Employer was called again on 5/1/98. The following information was obtained. Allen Dean, Human Resource Mgr. stated on 5/1/98. Claimant had been insubordinate. He did not always do what he was told. And his duties was constant, sometimes different personnel would asked him to do something else, but none of these thing was personal. The manager did listen to the claimant's complaint's and responded. Claimant did walk off the job without permission. Employer further stated he wanted copies of the tapes and wanted to be made aware of any decision made concerning this matter. He also requested further request be made to him at 1-800-877-8172 and mail be sent to Helig Meyers. Att: Allen Dean. Human Resource Dept. 12560 Wet Creek Parkway, Richmond, VA. 23238
¶ 7. Upon receipt of this response, Downer, on May 5, 1998 mailed to Campbell a "Notice of Non-monetary Decision," which stated:
You were discharged from your employment with Helig Meyers on March 13, 1998, for insubordination which constitutes a disrespect for authority. You, therefore, were discharged for misconduct connected with your work and are hereby, disqualified from receiving benefits from March 14, 1998, and until you have been reemployed and earned eight (8) times your weekly benefit amount or $1440.
¶ 8. On May 11, 1998, Campbell gave notice of his appeal to the Referee. On June 10, 1998, Brenda Kuriger, the appeals referee, conducted a hearing in this matter. Two witnesses appeared and testified, Tommy Sistrunk the employer representative, and Campbell, the claimant.
¶ 9. Sistrunk testified that he had no involvement in the decision to fire Campbell, nor was he present when this decision was made. The decision to terminate was made by Peggy Bailey, the manager. Sis-trunk said Bailey wrote insubordination and refusing to follow instructions as the reasons for firing Campbell. When asked what Bailey meant by insubordination, Sis-trunk indicated he did not know.
¶ 10. Sistrunk testified that the failure to follow orders referred to orders given to Campbell by Jean Harris, who, while still employed at Heilig-Meyers, was not called to testify regarding Campbell's refusal to follow orders. In the absence of Harris, Sistrunk, who was not present at any of this, attempted to establish Campbell's refusal to follow orders through remote hearsay, stating, "They told me Terry argued with her (Harris) disagreed with her and left the building."
¶ 11. Upon further questioning by the Referee, Sistrunk stated that the reason for Campbell's discharge was his recording of a conference which involved Bailey, Sis-trunk and Campbell on March 13, 1998.
¶ 12. Sistrunk testified that during that conference, Bailey informed Campbell that he would be further suspended. Campbell kept asking why and Bailey without explanation, indicated that was her decision.
¶ 13. Campbell testified that he had not refused to follow orders, but did acknowledge having recorded the conference with Sistrunk and Bailey. The unrebutted explanation offered by Campbell for taping this conference was ".... I had heard some pretty alarming things in that store and I said Lord I better do something to try to protect myself now. And that's what I did."
¶ 14. On June 11, 1998, the referee issued a written opinion upholding the denial of benefits. In that opinion the referee made the following findings of fact:
Claimant worked from December 12, 1997, until March 13, 1998, for Heilig Meyers, Forest, Mississippi. The claimant had been placed on a disciplinary suspension by his supervisor because of allegations of insubordination and refusing to follow instructions. The claimant was meeting with members of management regarding his suspensions and the allegations against him. The claimant made an audio tape of the meeting and the conversation. The fact that the claimant had taped the conversation was reported to management. The claimant's supervisor called the claimant and asked the claimant if he had made a tape of the meeting. The claimant declined to respond truthfully to the questions of management. He was terminated by his supervisor because he made the tape without the supervisor's knowledge and because he would not respond truthfully to the questions regarding the tape.
¶ 15. Campbell appealed this denial of benefits to the Board of Review. Without taking further testimony, the Board of Review, on July 16, 1998, adopted the findings of fact and opinion of the referee. This decision, like that of the referee, held that Campbell was fired solely because (1) he secretly taped the conference, and (2) "would not respond truthfully to the questions regarding the tape." It held that this was misconduct, which disqualified Campbell from the receipt of unemployment benefits.
DISCUSSION
¶ 16. Pursuant to Miss Code Ann. § 71-5-513A(l)(C ) (Supp.1999) misconduct must be proven by the employer. It must be proven by "substantial, clear, and convincing evidence" Halbert v. City of Columbus, 722 So.2d 522 (¶ 10) (Miss. 1998).
¶ 17. The facts which relate to the recording are undisputed. Campbell testified that he made the recording for his protection. He was disturbed about the working conditions at Heilig-Meyers. He felt he had been receiving conflicting instructions. He felt that less than reasonable demands were being made upon him. He felt that the manager was unwilling to have a civil discussion with him. He heard a store employee use racial slurs at various times. One of the racial remarks troubling Campbell was hearing it said that Ms. Peggy (the person who discharged Campbell) had a problem with the number of African Americans there. These things are unrebutted in the record.
¶ 18. This Court is therefore faced, not with a question of fact but, with a question of law. That being whether as a matter of law a person who secretly records a conference for his protection, has engaged in misconduct which will preclude his receipt of unemployment compensation. The answer to this question is no.
¶ 19. Misconduct has been defined as, "conduct evincing such willful and wanton disregard of the employer's interest as is found in deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect from his employee." Wheeler v. Arriola, 408 So.2d 1381, 1383 (Miss.1982) The effort to protect oneself is not "conduct evincing such willful and wanton disregard of the employer's interest as is found in deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior. ."
¶20. It is suggested that by not responding to Bailey's inquiry regarding having taped the meeting, Campbell was insubordinate. The definition of insubordination, as adopted by the Mississippi Supreme Court is, "A constant or continuing intentional refusal to obey a direct or implied order, reasonable in nature and given by and with proper authority constitutes insubordination." Shannon Engineering & Construction v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 549 So.2d 446, 449 (Miss.1989) Insubordination is included within the definition of misconduct, and must be proven by the employer. Miss Code Ann. § 71-5-513A(l)(C)(Supp.l999).
¶21. The employer has failed to produce evidence that Campbell refused to obey a reasonable order given by and with proper authority. Because misconduct must be proven, we cannot merely presume that Bailey had the authority and right to ask whether Campbell had recorded their meeting, and to expect an answer. Such cannot be presumed, particularly where Campbell testified that the recordation was made as a matter of protection.
¶ 22. The employer bears the burden of proving misconduct. That burden is not met by offering uncorroborated hearsay Mississippi Emp. Sec. Comm'n v. McLane-Southern, Inc., 583 So.2d 626, 628 (Miss.1991). Under these facts this
Court does not find that employer met its burden of proof.
¶ 28. The dissent incorrectly characterizes this Court's opinion as approving the secret recordation of meetings. Nothing could be further from the truth. The question before this Court is whether such action constitutes misconduct as a matter of law. We hold that it does not.
¶ 24. There can be no question that Campbell's conduct reflected poor judgment or that it provided a basis for his dismissal. But what is equally clear is that it does not constitute misconduct as contemplated by this State's unemployment compensation statutes.
¶ 25. THE JUDGMENT OF THE SCOTT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS REVERSED AND RENDERED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLEES.
IRVING, LEE, PAYNE, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
SOUTHWICK, P.J., dissents with separate written opinion joined by McMILLIN, C.J., BRIDGES and MOORE, JJ.
MYERS, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
. The relevant portion of Sistrunk's testimony is contained in footnote 2.
. The relevant evidence on this matter by the employer is as follows:
Q. What reason did she give Mr. Campbell for discharging him?
A. What she put on her papers was insubordination and refusing to follow instructions.
Q. Do you know how he was insubordinate?
A. I don't know what she meant by it, I mean, I wouldn't . no, I can't answer that.
Q. Do you know what instructions it was he refused to follow?
A. The instructions that I understand that he refused to follow was from his supervisor of the person in charge of him.
Q. Who was his supervisor?
A. At the time Ms. Jean Harris. I can't even think of names.
Q. And do you know what it was that he didn't do that he was asked to do by . it is Ms. Harris?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what it was that he refused to do?
# % £
A. They told me that Terry argued with her, disagree with her and left the building.
Q. Were you privy to that conversation, were you present?
A. No, I was not present.
Q. Is Ms. Harris still with the company?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did she not come today?
A. Well, I don't know, we didn't think it was necessary. She can if you need to talk to her.
Q. So on that Thursday morning it's your understanding that he was involved in an argument with Ms. Harris and he left the premises, is that your understanding?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. Had he received permission to leave the premises?
A. I was told not.
Q. Was that the final incident that caused him to be discharged?
A. No, the next day on Friday the 13th, Ms. Peggy and I and Terry met in her office and she told Terry that he would be put on suspension for a number of days. And I cannot recall the number of the days that he was going to be put on suspension. Terry kept questioning her why he was being put on suspension and she said that was her decision, you know, from what had happened on Thursday, that she was putting him on suspension. And later that day we were told by one of our employees that Terry recorded our conversation without us knowing this. And Ms. Bailey called him and questioned him did this happen and he never would give her an answer, so she terminated him.
Q. So was he terminated because he recorded the conversation, was that the sole reason?
A. Well, I supposed that was the final straw, yes, ma'am.
Q. And you were not aware that the conversation was being recorded?
A. No, I did not. And I was not present when she told him he was terminated. I think she talked to him on the telephone about that.