Section 29(1)(b)
MISCONDUCT, Poor performance
CITE AS: Davis v Plastics Technologies, Inc, No. 96845 (Mich App December 28, 1987).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Pleasie Davis
Employer: Plastics Technologies, Inc
Docket No: B85 09719 101071W
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Claimant is disqualified for misconduct where she had been given prior warnings and a suspension, and, despite a demonstrated ability to properly perform her duties, then produced defective parts amounting to 70% of her output, even though the defects were readily detectable.
FACTS: Claimant had previously received a written warning and, a week later, a suspension for producing excessive scrap or careless workmanship.
Claimant was assigned to a press inserting a number of screw inserts into a part. These inserts were to be flush, and it was claimant's job to inspect and report to supervision if there were problems. At the start of her shift she complained to the supervisor, but was able with instruction to run the parts correctly. At the end of her shift claimant had produced 220 parts, of which 150 were defective - missing the screw inserts or the inserts not being flush. These defects would have been easily detected by visual inspection.
The normal scrap on that part would have been 5 to 7%.
DECISION: Claimant is disqualified for misconduct under Section 29(1)(b) of MES Act.
RATIONALE: Claimant's actions reflect a substantial unexplained neglect of her duty to inspect the parts. This was such a wanton disregard of her obligations to be the equivalent of wilful or deliberate disregard for the employer's interest.
6/91
6, 15, d11:E