Jones v. Director of Div. of Employment Sec.

• Decision Date: 04 June 1984
• Citation: 465 N.E.2d 245,392 Mass. 148
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 245

465 N.E.2d 245

392 Mass. 148

Robert C. JONES v. DIRECTOR OF the DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY et al.¹ Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Suffolk.

Argued April 6, 1984.

Decided June 4, 1984.

Robin B. Klinger, Law Student, (Herman J. Smith, Jr., Arlington, with her), for plaintiff.

O'CONNOR, Justice.

The plaintiff appeals from a judgment of a District Court affirming a decision of the Division of Employment Security (division) denying the plaintiff unemployment compensation benefits. We reverse.

A review examiner of the division concluded that the plaintiff's discharge from work was attributable solely to deliberate misconduct in wilful disregard of the employer's interest within the meaning of G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e )(2). ² The board of review of the division (board) denied the plaintiff's application for review. On appeal a judge of the District Court affirmed the board's decision. The plaintiff appeals to this court from the action taken by the District Court.

Because the board denied the plaintiff's application for review, the decision of the review examiner is to be treated as that of the board. G.L. c. 151A, § 41(c ), as appearing in St.1976, c. 473, § 14. We summarize the findings of the review examiner. The review examiner found that the plaintiff worked as a "material handler" for Teradyne, Inc., from March, 1978, until his discharge on April 28, 1982. "On April 27, 1982, the claimant refused a direct order of the group leader to tag certain defective products that needed repair. The claimant refused to follow his superior's request as the claimant, himself, deemed the distribution work he was performing was of paramount importance. When the supervisor learned of the claimant's refusal, he terminated the claimant in view of a previous disciplinary warning issued to the claimant. On October 16, 1981, the claimant was given a written warning of his refusal at that time to follow a direct order of management. Said warning specifically noted that any further incidents of similar nature could warrant his termination."

The review examiner also found "that the claimant was discharged for refusal to carry out an assignment of tagging defective parts; that the claimant as a material handler was required in the past to perform similar tasks although he considered the distribution of repaired parts his primary work function; that there is no evidence ... to reflect [that] the new tasks assigned to him on April 27, 1982, were unreasonable or not within his capabilities; that the claimant had been insubordinate on a prior occasion and had been warned his job was in jeopardy." On the basis of the recited subsidiary findings, the review examiner concluded that the plaintiff's discharge was attributable solely to deliberate misconduct in wilful disregard of the employing unit's interest within the meaning of G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e )(2).

"When a discharged worker seeks compensation, the issue before the board is not whether the employer was justified in discharging the claimant but whether the Legislature intended that benefits should be denied in the circumstances." Garfield v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 377 Mass. 94, 95, 384 N.E.2d 642 (1979). In determining whether a discharged employee is precluded from the benefits of G.L. c. 151A by the application of § 25(e )(2), two inquiries are appropriate. "Both 'deliberate misconduct' and 'wilful disregard' of an employer's interest by the claimant are required to deny benefits under § 25(e )(2)." Jean v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 391 Mass. 206, 208, 460 N.E.2d 197 (1984). Torres v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec. 387 Mass. 776, 778-779, 443 N.E.2d 1297 (1982). Goodridge v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 375 Mass. 434, 436, 377 N.E.2d 927 (1978). Whether the employee's alleged misconduct is deliberate and in wilful disregard of the employer's interest depends on the employee's state of mind at the time of the misconduct. Jean, supra, 391 Mass. at 209, 460 N.E.2d 197.

A review examiner's decision must contain sufficient subsidiary findings to demonstrate that correct legal principles were applied. Lycurgus v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 391 Mass. 623, 626-627, 462 N.E.2d 326 (1984). Smith v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 376 Mass. 563,...