Section 29(1)(b)
MISCONDUCT, Drug testing, Intoxication
CITE AS: Korzowski v Pollack Industries, 213 Mich App 223 (1995)
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Ronald Korzowski
Employer: Pollack Industries
Docket No. B91-12778-120428W
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Evidence the claimant had red glassy eyes and was observed smoking marijuana was insufficient to find the claimant intoxicated. The evidence must show the claimant's physical or mental faculties were disturbed by his alleged use of marijuana to find him intoxicated and subject to disqualification.
FACTS: The claimant and two other employees went to an employee's home for lunch. One employee testified the claimant smoked marijuana, the other employee was not sure if the claimant smoked marijuana. Later that afternoon the three employees were questioned and told they needed to take a drug test because the employer believed they were under the influence of something. Neither the collective bargaining agreement nor the employer's policy addressed drug testing. The claimant refused to take the test and was fired. The Board found the claimant was intoxicated and disqualified the claimant under Section 29(1)(b) of the Act.
DECISION: The Court reversed the Board's conclusion that the claimant was disqualified under Section 29(1)(b) for being intoxicated at work and remanded to the Board on the question of whether the claimant's refusal to take the drug test was disqualifying misconduct.
RATIONALE: Intoxication is an abnormal state induced by a chemical agent and requires a disturbance of mental or physical capacities. The evidence at the Referee hearing did not establish the claimant was intoxicated.
Editor's Notes:
1) On remand the Board found the claimant's refusal to take the drug test was disqualifying work-connected misconduct.
2) this case was adjudicated under Section 29(1)(b), before the addition of Section 29(1)(m) to the MES Act.
7/99
24, 17, d12: N/A