Section 29(1)(b)
MISCONDUCT, Poor performance, Slacking off
CITE AS : Fettig v Soundtech, Inc, unpublished per curiam Court of Appeals, May 19, 1995, (No. 168208).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Donald Fettig
Employer: Soundtech, Inc
Docket No. B91-10663-R01-120317W
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: A recurring intentional "slacking off" when the claimant was previously able to meet the employer's standards is disqualifying misconduct
FACTS: The claimant worked for the employer as a machine operator. The claimant's performance fluctuated. He was fired for failing to maintain adequate production levels. He was warned and for a short period would resume adequate performance followed by a period of unsatisfactory performance. The claimant was unable to explain his recurring poor performance. He admitted he would do more than enough one day and then slack off on occasion.
DECISION: The claimant is disqualified for misconduct.
RATIONALE: This case falls between insubordination and mere inefficiency. There was a confluence of factors which point to the claimant's intentional and substantial disregard for the employer's interests. The claimant was able to meet the employer's expectations. There was no dispute he was repeatedly warned to improve his performance Despite these warnings the claimant's performance dwindled. By his own testimony he decided to "slack off." This amounted to refusing to perform his job and was not mere inefficiency.
7/99
19, 20: C