Opinion ID: 1288441
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: there was substantial and competent evidence to support the commission's decision

Text: Sun Valley alleges that Wulff was discharged for misconduct as measured both by a standards of behavior theory as well as under a deliberate disregard of an employer's rule theory. The deliberate disregard of an employer's rule theory requires a finding that the employee acted deliberately, violating a known rule. Misconduct for disregarding the employer's objectively reasonable standards of behavior is based upon the idea that: some expectations and duties flow normally from an employment relationship. Other expectations however, do not flow naturally. If certain practices or expectations are not common among employees in general or within a particular enterprise, and have not been communicated by the employer to the employee, they cannot serve as a proper basis for a charge of employee misconduct. Davis v. Howard O. Miller Co., 107 Idaho 1092, 1094, 695 P.2d 1231, 1233 (1984). In measuring the sufficiency of the Commission's findings, it is necessary to determine if Sun Valley proved (1) a deliberate violation of a known rule or (2) a breach of a standard of behavior that would flow normally from an employment relationship or which was communicated to Wulff because of its uncommon nature. Idaho case law discloses no requirement that there be a precipitating act of misconduct immediately prior to the termination of employment before a claimant may be denied unemployment benefits for employment-related misconduct. Roll v. City of Middleton, 105 Idaho 22, 26, 665 P.2d 721, 725 (1983). Sun Valley's allegations of misconduct must be analyzed individually and as a whole to determine whether the Commission's decision that Wulff's actions did not amount to misconduct, either as deliberate violation of a rule or breach of a standard of behavior, is supported by substantial and competent evidence. Sun Valley maintains that the evidence established Wulff was inflexible in shift scheduling. The Commission found that Sun Valley acknowledged that there were no instances in which Claimant either refused or failed to work when scheduled. There is substantial and competent evidence in the record supporting the Commission's decision that Wulff's inflexibility did not amount to misconduct because she never failed or refused to work. There is evidence that accommodating Wulff's scheduling requests was at times an extreme inconvenience, but the evidence shows that Sun Valley did accommodate those requests nonetheless and that Wulff did in fact work. Absent a showing of a refusal to work, the Commission's conclusion that Sun Valley did not prove misconduct in this regard is upheld. Sun Valley asserts that the evidence established that Wulff engaged in misconduct by making negative comments about Sun Valley in general and about the management of the skate shop in particular. Wulff's supervisor heard through the grapevine that she had questioned his competence and that of his assistant. The Commission could properly disregard this hearsay. Wulff's supervisor testified that he had received four complaints from Wulff's co-workers concerning her negative comments towards her coworkers [sic] and the place of employment as well as a single guest complaint that Wulff had been rude to some hockey kids. None of these incidents had been documented. Mildred Taylor, an employee, also testified that other unspecified employees had told her that Wulff had said Taylor was incompetent. The most specific non-hearsay derogatory remarks attributed to Wulff are statements to her supervisor that Sun Valley did not treat their employees well and another to the effect that she did not want to be at work. The Commission rejected Sun Valley's evidence and chose to accept as veritable Wulff's denial of these allegations. Wulff denied calling Maricich incompetent and denied saying that she did not want to be at work. There is no testimony in the record by Wulff refuting Taylor's hearsay account of Wulff calling Taylor incompetent. However, the Commission could disregard this hearsay. The Commission characterized Taylor's and Maricich's testimony as general averments which were insufficient to establish misconduct. That determination will not be overturned. A third ground upon which Sun Valley attempted to establish misconduct was Wulff's alleged communication deficiencies, specifically her habit of leaving scheduling requests in the form of a written note rather than asking Taylor or Maricich verbally. The Commission offset Sun Valley's complaint about Wulff's notes with her explanation that she frequently worked evenings, and that this had been an accepted practice with her previous supervisor. Although not explicitly stated, inherent in the Commission's ruling is a determination that the prohibition of note writing for schedule requests in the Sun Valley skate shop was not an expectation that was objectively reasonable in the particular case or a determination that there was no deliberate violation given the circumstances and practices of the previous management. The conclusion of the Commission is supported by substantial and competent evidence in the record for two reasons. First, the prohibition on note-writing is not the type of rule that flows naturally from the employment relationship without the need for communication. There is no evidence in the record that Maricich or Taylor specifically told Wulff that the manner in which she was making requests was forbidden. Absent specific notice that the practice of writing notes was forbidden, Sun Valley's past practices had given rise to a `contradictory standard' that undermined its ability to assert that [the claimant's] conduct fell below an expected `standard of behavior.' Campbell v. Bonneville County Bd. of Commr's, 126 Idaho at 226, 880 P.2d at 256. The final basis for Sun Valley's claim of misconduct is the charge that Wulff allowed her children into the skate shop while she was working after having been explicitly forbidden to do so. Maricich warned Wulff in April of 1992 that bringing her children to work with her was unacceptable. Subsequently, there was an incident on July 6, 1992, where Wulff's son was in the shop on and off all day. This resulted in a written warning. The Commission did not address this incident specifically. However, Sun Valley did not discharge Wulff for this incident. Rather, Sun Valley warned her. The remaining allegations regarding the children being impermissibly present at the skating area were defended by Wulff on the grounds that they were present for the figure skating program. The Commission accepted this explanation. The single incident identified by Sun Valley involving a possible interference with Wulff's responsibilities caused by her children attending the skate program is an occasion where Wulff locked the register and helped her son search for a missing Swiss Army knife. The Commission sided with Wulff's assertion that this did not interfere with her work because she often had to leave the register for work-related responsibilities. In light of the fact that the children had a permissible reason to be on the premises independent of their mother's position at Sun Valley, and because Sun Valley did not show that Wulff abrogated her responsibilities while they were there, the Commission's resolution cannot be characterized as clearly erroneous. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the Commission's conclusion that the various acts of Wulff individually, or taken together, do not constitute misconduct.