Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Dryer, et al v MESC 12.36

Section 29(1)(b)

MISCONDUCT, Insubordination, Work rules

CITE AS: Dryer et al v MESC, No. 84456 (Mich App June 1, 1986).

Appeal pending: No

Claimant: Leonard B. Dryer and Dennis D. Ferguson

Employer: Hale Wood Products

Docket No: B84 06093 97061W

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where an employee, in violation of a known work rule, refuses an employer's instructions to return to work, the refusal is misconduct and benefits are properly denied.

FACTS: The employer warned employees that unless productivity improved, the employees' coffee break privileges would be terminated. On February 9, 1984 productivity not having improved, the employer announced the 2 paid coffee breaks would be eliminated. On February 10, 1984 all employees took their morning coffee break. The employer then warned that anyone taking the afternoon coffee break would be fired. Claimants and three other employees took the afternoon coffee break anyway and refused to return to work when requested to do so. All five employees were discharged.

DECISION: Claimants were discharged for misconduct and are disqualified for benefits.

RATIONALE: "Laying aside the cause of slipping work productivity, the facts - which petitioners do not dispute - establish that their employer warned them not to take a break, they did so anyway, and refused to go back to work when asked to do so. There was competent, material and substantial evidence on this record to support a finding of misconduct."


3, 11:NA

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page