Opinion
Jan. 14, 1975.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Evidence supported Industrial Commission's finding which resulted in award of 50% unemployment compensation benefits, that claimant was partially responsible for incompatibility between claimant and supervisor leading to claimant's discharge. 1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S., 82-4-8(5)(c); C.R.S. '73, 8-73-108(5)(b).
Henry R. Pelder, pro se.
John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Deputy Atty. Gen., Robert L. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondents.
PIERCE, Judge.
Claimant appeals from a final order of the Colorado Industrial Commission which awarded him unemployment compensation benefits under the provisions of s 8--73--108(5)(b), C.R.S.1973 (1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 82--4--8(5)(c), which statute provides that a claimant may be entitled to 50 percent of a full award if his discharge is 'under conditions indicating that the claimant contributed to, but was not wholly responsible for, incompatibility with a supervisor or fellow employees.' Claimant argues that he is entitled to a full award on the ground that the termination was entirely the fault of the employer.
Claimant, a marketing research analyst for Gates Rubber Company, testified that his disagreements with his immediate supervisor had been numerous and basic for a prolonged period of time. On January 9, 1974, the date of his discharge, claimant delivered a memorandum to his superior setting forth the ethical standards and procedures of marketing research which he proposed to follow, and stating 'if you don't like these standards, by all means terminate me and continue working with SWAG artists with no proven track record, instant experts, and credibility gaps in marketing research as a money making/saving tool in executive decision making.' Additionally the memorandum casts aspersions on the supervisor's intelligence, professional competence, and integrity.
The Commission found 'claimant was terminated because of a long standing disagreement between himself and his supervisor concerning the length of time which was required for the claimant to perform his job assignments. It is apparent that as a result of continuing disagreements, a personality conflict had arisen between the claimant and his supervisor which resulted in the claimant's termination.'
Our function is not to weigh the evidence and to determine facts, but to search the record for evidence in support of the Commission's findings. Morrison Road Bar, Inc. v. Industrial Commission, 138 Colo. 16, 328 P.2d 1076. The credibility of witnesses and the inferences to be drawn from the evidence are for the Commission to determine, and if such inferences are reasonable and the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the findings, is sufficient to support the findings, we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the Commission. Industrial Commission v. Bennett, 166 Colo. 101, 441 P.2d 648.
Review of the evidence clearly indicates a long history of disagreement between the claimant and his supervisor, and the tone and contents of the January 9, 1974, memorandum indicate an attempt to insult and antagonize the supervisor. This evidence is susceptible of conflicting inferences, and the Commission's decision will be upheld since it is based on a choice between plausible views of the weight of evidence or a choice between conflicting inferences from the evidence. Curtis v. Industrial Commission, 167 Colo. 462, 447 P.2d 1012; McGinn v. Industrial Commission, 31 Colo.App. 6, 496 P.2d 1080.
Under the circumstances of this case, the Commission did not err in making its award under s 8--73--108(5)(b), C.R.S.1973 (1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 82--4--8(5)(c)), rather than under other sections specified by claimant.
Order affirmed.
SMITH and KELLY, JJ., concur.