Carter v. Michigan Employment Sec. Commission, 38

• Decision Date: 30 November 1961
• Docket Number: No. 38,38
• Citation: 111 N.W.2d 817,364 Mich. 538
• Parties: Arthur CARTER, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION, Defendant and Appellant, and Michigan Employment Security Appeal Board, Defendant and Appellee, and Detroit Lead Corporation, a Michigan corporation, Defendant and Appellee.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 817

111 N.W.2d 817

364 Mich. 538

Arthur CARTER, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION, Defendant and Appellant and Michigan Employment Security Appeal Board, Defendant and Appellee and Detroit Lead Corporation, a Michigan corporation, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 38.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Nov. 30, 1961.

Rothe, Marston, Mazey, Sachs & O'Connell, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.

Paul L. Adams, Atty. Gen., Samuel J. Torina, Sol. Gen., Lansing, E. J. Setlock, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Michigan Employment Security Commission.

Beaumont, Smith & Harris, Frank E. Cooper Detroit, for Michigan Employers' Unemployment Compensation Bureau, amicus curiae.

Before the Entire Bench.

EDWARDS, Justice.

This is an appeal from the Wayne circuit court in which appellant Michigan employment security commission contends that an employee discharged by a corporation should be disqualified from unemployment compensation benefits because of misconduct. The facts as found by the referee and appeal board of the Michigan employment security commission indicated that the discharge was based on the employee's refusal to carry out a foreman's order, and his subsequent threat to punch the foreman in the nose. The circuit judge held that this was not misconduct within the meaning of the statute. We reverse.

Plaintiff Arthur Carter was employed by the Detroit Lead Corporation. He was assigned to operate a furnace. During the last day claimant worked, the president of the company noticed a pile of lead dust (dross) on the floor in front of Carter's furnace; and he instructed the foreman, Veerett Davis, to have Carter shovel the dross into the furnace. When the foreman directed Carter to shovel the dross into the furnace, Carter refused to do so. Davis then said he would shovel the dross in himself. At this point Davis contends (and Carter denies) that Carter threatened to punch him in the nose if he did. Davis reported this episode to his general manager and was told to leave Carter alone, and the following day the general manager discharged Carter.

The events as recited above are essentially as they were found by the referee, and as affirmed by the majority of the appeal board of the Michigan employment security commission with 1 member dissenting. In this regard, claimant's brief concedes:

'The claimant does not dispute these facts, except that he states that he did not threaten the foreman. However, for the purposes of this argument, and this appeal, we must concede that he did threaten the foreman, since such was the finding of the referee, adopted by the appeal board, and there was evidence in the record which can support such finding.'

This case was heard on certiorari by a Wayne circuit judge who held that the acts of claimant as stated above did not meet the definition of misconduct previously set forth by this Court in Cassar v. Employment Security Commission, 343 Mich. 380, 72 N.W.2d 254, and Linski v. Employment Security Commission, 358 Mich. 239, 99 N.W.2d 582.

In these cases this Court adopted the classic definition of misconduct originally drafted by the Wisconsin supreme court in Boynton Cab Company v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 296 N.W. 636, 640 '* * * the term 'misconduct' * * * is limited to conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to his employer. On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed 'misconduct' within the meaning of the statute.'

In our statement of the facts in this appeal, we have ignored much debate between the parties as to other actions of claimant which are claimed to have contributed to his discharge. For purposes of this decision it is sufficient for us to note that a refusal of an employee to carry out a reasonable order of his foreman, coupled with a threat to punch him in the nose when the foreman offered to do the work himself, is misconduct within the meaning of the statute.*

Such a response is both a wilful disregard of the employer's interests and a deliberate violation of standards of behavior which an employer has a right to expect of his employee. Boynton Cab Company v. Neubeck, supra; see, also, Bell v. Employment Security Commission, 359 Mich. 649, 103 N.W.2d 584. These acts are fundamentally disruptive of orderly conduct of work and of an employer's right to direct its prosecution. Metzger v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 191 Pa.Super. 588, 159 A.2d 42; Virginia, App Bd Examiner Dec No. S-4656-4603, CCH Unemployment Ins Rep, § 8179.07.

See, also, 34 Halsbury's Laws of England (2d ed), p 525.

The circuit judge was in error in holding that such conduct was merely 'unsatisfactory conduct' or 'failure of good performance.'

Claimant-appellee, however, asserts no general right to refuse to obey orders or to threaten physical violence to supervisory personnel. His contention is that this record does not show wilful disregard of the employer's rights because he contends his conduct was motivated by personal fear of the results of carrying out the orders issued.

Claimant's testimony about the episode which is relied on in this regard is:

'Q. ...