MISCONDUCT, Absences and tardiness, Lack of warning
CITE AS: Lynch v Highland Appliance, No. 111410 (Mich App September 11, 1989).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Michael Lynch
Employer: Highland Appliance
Docket No: B85 06593 100612
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Disqualifying misconduct may be based on a series of infractions even if the claimant is not warned his or her job is in jeopardy.
FACTS: Claimant was chronically tardy and absent and received numerous warnings. Claimant received a written warning on January 2, 1985 for 9 consecutive tardies. He reported late on January 3 and was discharged on January 4, 1985.
DECISION: Claimant is disqualified under Section 29(1)(b).
RATIONALE: Claimant's position was that he was never told his job was in jeopardy because of his attendance and therefore, his act of being late on January 3 was not misconduct. Claimant did not dispute that he had a history of unexcused absences and tardiness. It is well established a finding of misconduct may be based on claimant's actions as a whole even though one infraction by itself might not arise to the level of misconduct. There is no support under Michigan law for the proposition that an employee must be warned their job is in jeopardy in order for the discharge to be disqualifying.