Section 29(1)(b)
MISCONDUCT, Horseplay
CITE AS: Tetsworth v Eberhard Foods, Inc., No. 110964 (Mich App August 16, 1989).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Richard A. Tetsworth
Employer: Eberhard Foods, Inc
Docket No: B86 13633 104876W
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Claimant's conduct may be evaluated independent of employer's work rules governing "horseplay."
FACTS: Claimant and another employee forced a co-worker into a machine used for baling cardboard to frighten him. Claimant was discharged. He claimed his actions were merely "horseplay", that the same thing had been done on other occasions, that employer knew of these incidents and did not discipline anyone.
DECISION: Claimant was discharged for misconduct.
RATIONALE: Claimant's conduct was so clearly dangerous to the safety and life of another individual that he should be disqualified regardless of whether or not his behavior is within the parameters of employer's definition of "horseplay".
11/90
13, 14:I