Section 29(1)(b)
MISCONDUCT, Collective bargaining agreement violation, Substantial disregard of employer's interests
CITE AS: Razmus v Kirkhof Transformer, 137 Mich App 311 (1984).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Stanley Razmus
Employer: Kirkhof Transformer
Docket No: B81 09842 79068
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The violation of an employer's rules or a provision of the collective bargaining agreement is not, per se, misconduct within the meaning of the statute.
FACTS: The claimant was discharged in accordance with a collective bargaining agreement after claimant committed his third "Group II" violation of shop rules. The Group II violations which justified claimant's discharge included violations of wasting time, loitering on company property and a violation of the safety rules.
DECISION: The claimant is not disqualified for misconduct discharge.
RATIONALE: "The safety violation, if anything, evinces an intent to further the employer's interest. Plaintiff removed his safety glasses because they kept falling off and interfering with his helping a new employee. Plaintiff's first violation occurred when he left for only a few minutes to get a pack of cigarettes from the cafeteria. The third violation occurred when plaintiff left for 20 to 25 minutes to check on the battery in his car. On both occasions, plaintiff left his work station only after he had finished welding and was waiting for the lead to cool. Two other employees verified plaintiff's assertion that other employees sometimes temporarily left their work station to go to the cafeteria."
We hold that the three violations which were the basis for plaintiff's discharge do not constitute misconduct within the meaning of MCL 420.29(1)(b).
11/90
10, 15:NA