JPS Converter v. VEC and Charlotte Laprade

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick
JPS CONVERTER & INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION
v. Record No. 1584-95-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION *
PER CURIAM
VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995
AND
CHARLOTTE S. LAPRADE
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FRANKLIN COUNTY
Kenneth M. Covington, Judge Designate
(Robert O. King; E. Grantland Burns;
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,
on brief), for appellant.
(James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General;
Patricia H. Quillen, Assistant Attorney
General; Lisa J. Rowley, Assistant Attorney
General, on brief), for appellee Virginia
Employment Commission.
No brief for appellee Charlotte S. Laprade.
JPS Converter & Industrial Corporation (JPS) appeals the
decision of the circuit court affirming a VEC finding that
Charlotte S. Laprade was entitled to unemployment compensation as
she was not fired for work-related misconduct. On appeal, JPS
raises two issues: (1) whether the court erred in ruling
Laprade's actions did not constitute misconduct under Code
§ 60.2-618(2); and (2) whether JPS condoned Laprade's misconduct.
Under Code § 60.2-625(A), "the findings of the [VEC] as to
*
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not
designated for publication.
the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud,
shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of the court shall be
confined to questions of law." Shifflett v. Virginia Employment
Comm'n, 14 Va. App. 96, 97, 414 S.E.2d 865, 865 (1992). "The
VEC's findings may be rejected only if, in considering the record
as a whole, a reasonable mind would necessarily come to a
different conclusion." Craft v. Virginia Employment Comm'n, 8
Va. App. 607, 609, 383 S.E.2d 271, 273 (1989). However, whether
an employee's behavior amounted to misconduct is a mixed question
of law and fact reviewable by this Court. Israel v. Virginia
Employment Comm'n, 7 Va. App. 169, 172, 372 S.E.2d 207, 209
(1988).
The VEC specifically found that, although Laprade, along
with other employees, entered her supervisor's office, opened a
note to her supervisor from another employee, and read the note,
the evidence was insufficient to show that Laprade actually took
or destroyed the note. The evidence established that the note
was returned to the box of candy to which it had been attached.
Later that day, Laprade noticed that the envelope containing the
note was in the waste box. Laprade made no comment at the time,
but that night, returned to the plant and left an unsigned note
under the supervisor's door noting that a gift for the supervisor
had been thrown away. Additionally, the VEC found that Laprade
was not the only one with access to the supervisor's office
during the day of the incident.
2
Approximately eight months later, Laprade commented to her
supervisor that she was the author of the unsigned note. Three
months later still, Laprade was involved in an argument with the
co-worker who had brought the gift of candy. Following an
additional inquiry, Laprade admitted that she had read the note.
Laprade was subsequently fired for violating JPS'S policy
prohibiting "unauthorized removal of company property or the
property of fellow-employees, contractors, or vendors."
The VEC ruled that there was insufficient evidence that
Laprade had thrown away the candy or the note. Furthermore, the
VEC ruled that, while Laprade "exercised extremely poor judgement
in reading the note and then not calling attention to the fact
that it and the candy had ended up in the waste box," her actions
"did not rise to the level of a deliberate and willful violation
of the rules and standards of behavior expected of her as an
employee."
Evidence of Willful Misconduct
"A forfeiture of benefits will be upheld only where the
facts clearly demonstrate 'misconduct.'" Kennedy's Piggly Wiggly
Stores, Inc. v. Cooper, 14 Va. App. 701, 707, 419 S.E.2d 278, 282
(1992).
[A]n employee is guilty of "misconduct
connected with his work" when he deliberately
violates a company rule reasonably designed
to protect the legitimate business interests
of his employer, or when his acts or
omissions are of such a nature or so
recurrent as to manifest a willful disregard
of those interests and the duties and
obligations he owes his employer.
3
Branch v. Virginia Employment Comm'n, 219 Va. 609, 611, 249
S.E.2d 180, 182 (1978). We cannot say that the record as a whole
necessarily leads us to a conclusion different from that reached
by the VEC. Accordingly, we find no error in the rulings of the
circuit court and the VEC that there was insufficient evidence of
deliberate misconduct by Laprade.
Condonation
As the record supports the VEC's determination that there
was insufficient evidence of willful misconduct by Laprade, we
need not and do not address the additional finding that JPS's
delay in taking any action against Laprade amounted to
condonation.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.
Affirmed.
4