Section 29(1)(6)
MISCONDUCT, Garnishment, Connection with work, Rule of selection
CITE AS: Reed v MESC, 364 Mich 395 (1961).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Willie Reed
Employer: Grant Brothers Foundry Company
Docket No: B57 5250 RO 20493
SUPREME COURT HOLDING: Claimant is not disqualified for misconduct in connection with his work within the meaning of the MES Act.
FACTS: Employer had a rule that an employee would be discharged if his wages were garnished more than once. Four garnishments of claimant's wages were served on the employer within a 9 month period. Claimant was fired.
DECISION: Claimant is not disqualified under the misconduct discharge provisions where no connection with the work was established.
RATIONALE: Even if claimant's going in debt and failure to pay were misconduct, those acts were not connected with his work. "We do not suggest that infraction of a company rule governing conduct on the job or connected with the work may never amount to disqualifying misconduct. Here, however, we have a rule of selection rather than one of conduct. That is to say, the rule does not govern an employee's conduct connected with his work, but rather, sets forth a condition of employment and continuance therein. It covers the selection and retention of employees, not their conduct on the job or connected with their work. Breach thereof may entitle the employer to discharge his employee, but such discharge is not for misconduct connected with his work as contemplated by the statute."
12/91
NA