Section 29(1)(b)
MISCONDUCT DISCHARGE, Child care, Disruption of work, Insubordination, Lack of babysitter, Unauthorized absence
CITE AS: Law v Village of Union City, No. 80-03-198 AE, Branch Circuit Court (September 19, 1980).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Jon Law
Employer: Village of Union City
Docket No: B78 10786 66039
CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where an employee refuses a verbal warning for absences, and informs the employer that the individual will be absent whenever a babysitter is unavailable, the claimant is disqualified for misconduct discharge.
FACTS: The claimant was a maintenance worker, under the supervision of James Spencer."The incident which precipitated the claimant's termination stemmed from the employer's efforts to counsel the claimant with regard to his attendance. Mr. Spencer related at the hearing that he sought to instruct the claimant that his attendance was unsatisfactory and was told simply by the claimant that if he found it necessary in the future to remain home to babysit with his children he would do so."
DECISION: The claimant is disqualified for misconduct discharge.
RATIONALE: The Court adopted the decision of the Referee, who held: "At the hearing of this appeal, the claimant testified that he had determined the nature of the work on which he had been placed was not pressing and further, that he would occasion an economic loss in the event that his wife had to remain home and care for his children as opposed to his doing so in the absence of a babysitter. In effect, the claimant informed his employer that he would appear when it was convenient for him to do so. If all other personnel were afforded similar latitude in the performance of their assignments, irrespective of whether they received compensation for the days on which they do not appear, it would be impossible for the employing unit to undertake any activities."
"In the opinion of this Referee, the claimant's assertion indicated a wilful and wanton disregard of the employer's interest."
11/90
7, 14, d3:NA