Case Name: HELZER v. METZGAR CONVEYOR COMPANY
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1979-05-01
Citations: 89 Mich. App. 695
Docket Number: Docket No. 77-3220
Parties: HELZER v METZGAR CONVEYOR COMPANY
Judges: Before: M. F. Cavanagh, P.J., and D. E. Holbrook and Beasley, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 89
Pages: 695–703

Head Matter:
HELZER v METZGAR CONVEYOR COMPANY
Docket No. 77-3220.
Submitted March 8, 1978, at Grand Rapids.
Decided May 1, 1979.
Lawrence G. Helzer was discharged from his employment by Metzgar Conveyor Company. He applied for unemployment benefits and was found by a referee of the Employment Security Commission to have been discharged for misconduct connected with his work and that he was therefore disqualified from receiving benefits for a period of six weeks. The referee’s decision was upheld by the Employment Security Commission Appeal Board and Helzer sought review in the Kent Circuit Court, which upheld the denial, George R. Cook, J. Helzer appeals. Held:
The referee’s finding that Helzer had engaged in a pattern of misconduct was supported by the evidence, and the decision that the misconduct was sufficient to disqualify Helzer from receiving benefits for the statutory period was in conformance with both the law and the evidence.
Affirmed.
M. F. Cavanagh, P.J., dissented. He would hold that the circuit court erred by failing to review the issue of misconduct, and that neither of the two acts complained of were sufficient to bring Helzer’s activities within the definition of misconduct under the statute. Likewise, he would hold that the two acts viewed together did not constitute a pattern of misconduct sufficient to deprive Helzer of unemployment compensation benefits. He would reverse.
Opinion of the Court •
1. Unemployment Compensation — Discharge of Employee —- Misconduct — Statutes.
An employee who is discharged for misconduct may be disquali fied from receiving unemployment compensation where the misconduct evinces such wilful or wanton disregard of the employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior rightfully expected by the employer, or carelessness or negligence of such degree as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations (MCL 421.29[1][b]; MSA 17.531[1][b]).
References for Points in Headnotes
76 Am Jur 2d, Unemployment Compensation §§ 52-54.
Work-connected inefficiency or negligence as "misconduct” barring unemployment compensation. 26 ALR3d 1356.
2 Am Jur 2d, Administrative Law § 549.
76 Am Jur 2d, Unemployment Compensation § 6.
Dissent by Cavanagh, P.J.
2. Administrative Law — Employment Security Commission — Appeal and Error — Standard for Review — Statutes.
An order of the Employment Security Commission may be reversed by a reviewing court only if the decision is contrary to law or is unsupported by competent, material evidence on the whole record; where no dispute exists as to the underlying facts the question presented is the proper application or interpretation of the law (Const 1963, art 6, §28; MCL 421.38; MSA 17.540).
3. Unemployment Compensation — Disqualification — Employee Misconduct — Statutes.
An employee’s action in breaking down a door in the employer’s place of business did not constitute misconduct sufficient to justify disqualification from payment of unemployment beneñts where the action was neither a breach of duty endangering human life and property nor was it fundamentally disruptive of orderly conduct of work and of the employer’s right to direct the work (MCL 421.29[l][bj; MSA 17.531[l][bj).
4. Unemployment Compensation — Remedial Purpose — Liberal Construction.
The unemployment compensation act is remedial in purpose and must be liberally construed.
5. Unemployment Compensation — Master and Servant — Employee Misconduct — Pattern of Misconduct.
The fact that two instances of misconduct of an employee are distant in time from one another does not prevent a ñnding of a pattern of misconduct sufficient to disqualify the employee for unemployment compensation; however, such a determination should be based on the "total picture" to consider the consistency, duration and gravity of the employee’s conduct, and where the behavior was not so continuous and egregious that it evidences his utter disregard for the employer’s interests a ñnding of a pattern of misconduct is erroneous (MCL 421.29[1][b]; MSA 17.531[1][b]).
Michael Nelson, Legal Aid & Defender Association of Kent County, for plaintiff.
Miller, Johnson, Snell & Cummiskey (by Brent D. Rector), for defendant Metzgar Conveyor Company.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and James H. White, Assistant Attorney General, for the Employment Security Commission.
Before: M. F. Cavanagh, P.J., and D. E. Holbrook and Beasley, JJ.

Opinion:
Beasley, J.
Plaintiff appeals from a determination by a referee for the Michigan Employment Security Commission (MESC) disqualifying him from unemployment benefits for a six-week period. The referee found that the plaintiff had been discharged for "misconduct connected with his work" pursuant to MCL 421.29(1)(b); MSA 17.531(1)(b). This decision of the referee, which was affirmed by both the appeal board and the circuit court, is supported by competent, material evidence on the whole record. The referee made the following findings of fact after hearing the contradictory testimony regarding a two-by-four thrown through a window on April 18, 1974, and damage to a cafeteria door on December 30, 1974:
"The claimant worked approximately one year for this employer as a machinist. On or about December 30, 1974 while in the plant, he came through one of the doors with such force that the hinges were bent, two bolts were knocked out, and the portion of the air stopper on the door attached to the frame was pulled out. This is a Union shop, and he was terminated and subsequently filed a grievance, which was to no avail.
"The claimant contends he just opened the door and that someone prior to that had loosened the bolts, and to the best of his knowledge there was no damage. The employer witness stated it took him 1 1/2 to 2 hours of labor, plus two bolts, and he straightened the door out with a hammer and a vise. The witness stated no one actually saw the claimant push the door, but the witness who testified that when he heard the noise, he witnessed the claimant charging in after the door was pushed open by him. The witness also testified that when he was a foreman, on or about April 18, 1974, the claimant was given a reprimand for throwing a 2x4 through the window. The claimant states this was accidental as he meant to throw it in the wood pile as another employee threw it at him. The claimant was terminated on December 30, 1974 by the foreman, and the reason given him was 'abuse of company property.' The Referee notes this was identical to the notice given to the claimant (Ex. #11) on April 18, 1974."
In support of his decision, the referee cited Miller v F W Woolworth Co, and concluded that plaintiff could be disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits under the misconduct provision of the act for a discharge which resulted from a "pattern of misconduct".
The standard for disqualifying misconduct is enunciated in Carter v Employment Security Comm as:
"limited to conduct evincing such wilful 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."
Applying this definition to this case, we find that the referee's decision was in conformance with both the law and the evidence.
Affirmed.
D. E. Holbrook, J., concurred.
This disqualification period was based on the version of MCL 421.29(3); MSA 17.531(3) then in effect. Subsequently, the statute was amended, effective June 6, 1975, to provide a 13-week disqualification period for benefits where an employee is discharged for misconduct under MCL 421.29(1)(b); MSA 17.531(1)(b). See, 1975 PA 110, § 1.
Const 1963, art 6, § 28; MCL 421.38; MSA 17.540.
359 Mich 342; 102 NW2d 728 (1960).
MCL 421.29(1)(b); MSA 17.531(1)(b).
364 Mich 538, 541; 111 NW2d 817 (1961).