Section 28 Voluntary Leaving

• Library: Emp-Emp Law 2000

Section 288.050.1(1), RSMo Supp. 1999, provides for the disqualification of a claimant for benefits until the claimant has earned wages for work insured under the unemployment compensation laws of any state equal to ten times the claimant’s weekly benefit amount if it is found that the claimant has left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the work or the employer. A similar disqualification is applicable to a claimant who has retired under a collective bargaining agreement or in accordance with an established policy of the employer. Section 288.050.1(2).

The claimant has the burden of showing good cause. Producers Produce Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 291 S.W.2d 166, 173 (Mo. 1956). A summary of what constitutes good cause is:

Voluntary termination of employment must be in good faith. A worker has good cause to terminate employment voluntarily when that conduct conforms to what an average person, who acts with reasonableness and in good faith, would do. . . .

“To establish good faith the employee must prove an effort was made to resolve the dispute before resorting to the drastic measure of quitting his or her job.” This is consistent with the purpose behind the Missouri Employment Security Law which is to provide monetary relief for persons unemployed through no fault of their own.

. . . .

“Good cause” has been said to be “limited to instances where the unemployment is caused by external pressures so compelling that a reasonably prudent person would be justified in giving up employment.”

Clark v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 875 S.W.2d 624, 627 (Mo. App. W.D. 1994) (citations omitted). “Good cause is a standard of reason applied to the average person, not to the supersensitive.” Tin Man Enters. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 866 S.W.2d 147, 149 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993).

In Brown v. Labor & Industrial Relations Commission, 577 S.W.2d 90 (Mo. App. W.D. 1978), the court of appeals ruled on a situation in which employees left part-time work to continue in concurrent full-time work and were later separated from the full-time work under nondisqualifying circumstances. The court held that the claimants were not to be denied benefits as a result of leaving the part-time work and that benefits paid to the claimants were not chargeable to the part-time employers’ separate accounts. In Mid-Missouri Mental Health Center v. Polston, 995 S.W.2d 527 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999), the court extended the rationale in Brown to the situation where a claimant quits a full-time job and immediately goes to work for the part-time employer full-time. The separation from the full-time employer is not disqualifying.

Cases that speak to the issue of whether a separation from work was a voluntary leaving that could result in a disqualification for benefits include:

• Theus v. Industrial Comm’n, 554 S.W.2d 516 (Mo. App. W.D. 1977) (resignation and withdrawal of resignation)

• Davis v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 554 S.W.2d 541 (Mo. App. E.D. 1977) (employee request for leave of absence)

• Duffy v. Labor &...