Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Tuck v ESC 12.52

Section 29(1)(b)

MISCONDUCT, Removal of property, Single incident, de minimis doctrine

CITE AS: Tuck v ESC, 152 Mich App 579 (1986)

Appeal pending: No

Claimant: Dave W. Tuck

Employer: Ashcraft's Market, Inc.

Docket No: B82 16690 86509W

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Breach of rules, negligence, or good faith error in judgment with respect to a single incident does not necessarily rise to the level of misconduct under the Carter definition. Claimant is not disqualified for misconduct because of the unauthorized removal of property of an employer which has de minimis value.

FACTS: Claimant, a meat cutter, removed two cartons of fish from employer's premises without authorization. Claimant had observed that the fish was thawed and unsaleable and took it upon himself to deal with its disposal since the regular manager was unavailable. He removed the fish via the back door of the supermarket which was strictly against employer's rule and took it home to use as bear bait.

DECISION: Claimant was not disqualified under the misconduct discharge provisions of 29(1)(b) of the MES Act.

RATIONALE: Not every breach of company rules rises to a level of misconduct sufficient to disqualify an employee for unemployment benefits as defined in Carter.


3, 14:F

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page