Ronald Madrid, Petitioner,
v.
Mountain States Telephone
and Telegraph Company and the
Industrial
Commission of the State of Colorado,
Respondents.
No. 85CA1295.
728 P.2d
1299
Colorado
Court of Appeals,
Div. III.
Oct. 30, 1986.
Podoll & Podoll, P.C., Richard B. Podoll, Rhonda J. Watson,
Denver, for petitioner.
Eiberger, Stacy & Smith, Raymond W. Martin, Denver, for
respondent Mountain States Tel. and Tel. Co.
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty.
Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Robert C. Lehnert, Asst. Atty.
Gen., Denver, for respondent Industrial Com'n.
BABCOCK, Judge.
Claimant, Ronald Madrid, seeks review of a final order of the
Industrial Commission (Commission) denying him full unemployment
compensation benefits following his discharge from Mountain States
Telephone & Telegraph Company (employer). We affirm.
Claimant initially contends that the Commission's findings are
unsupported by the evidence. We disagree.
The evidence shows that while employed as a second-level manager,
claimant and two other employees were officers, directors, and
shareholders of Treelore, Inc., a computer consulting firm. Claimant
admitted preparing Treelore documents, including invoices, contract
proposals, and business cards, on his employer's computer and
related equipment. Claimant's company also sought and performed
contract work for employer's Public Relations Department.
The Commission found these practices violative of employer's
policies forbidding use of company property for non-work related
purposes, and its policy regarding potential employee conflicts of
interest. Claimant testified he received a copy of these policies
when he was first employed, that he understood them, and that he
reviewed them annually.
Claimant complied with company policy by filing a conflict of
interest disclosure statement with employer in March 1982, in which
he disclosed his business relationship with and interest in Treelore,
Inc., but claimant stated that Treelore did not supply services to
employer. In response, employer determined that no conflict existed,
but directed claimant to file an updated disclosure statement should
circumstances change. Thereafter, Treelore supplied employer with
computer services, but claimant admitted not updating his disclosure
statement.
While conflicting evidence was received on the extent of
employer's toleration of employees' personal use of its equipment,
it is for the Commission to resolve disputed questions of fact.
In re Claim of Allmendinger v. Industrial Commission, 40
Colo.App. 210, 571 P.2d 741 (1977). We will not substitute our
judgment where, as here, the Commission's findings are supported by
the record.
Claimant argues that the Commission's findings nonetheless do not
support its decision. Again, we disagree.
In resolving this claim, the Commission relied upon Sec.
8-73-108(5)(e)(VII), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol.3B). This section permits
a reduced award of benefits upon a showing that claimant violated a
company rule which resulted or could have resulted in serious damage
to the employer's property or interest. Claimant argues that no
evidence of serious damage to the employer's interest was received.
The Commission found that while employer could not estimate the
exact value of claimant's use of its equipment, such unauthorized
use had a cost impact on employer. Moreover, the employer's policies
that the Commission found violated are of such nature that their
violation is prejudicial to its legitimate interests as a public
utility. The record amply supports the conclusion that because these
policies were violated, serious damage could have resulted to the
employer's interests. See In re Claim of Allmendinger v.
Industrial Commission, supra.
Order affirmed.
Van Cise and Metzger, JJ., concur.
Printer-friendly version