Opinion ID: 186589
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Discharge for Misconduct

Text: 33 Hydorn was informed by letter that his discharge was the result of his refusal to follow the instructions and the direct order given by [his] supervisor. Discharge Letter, supra, J.A. 60. It is undisputed that Hydorn repeatedly told his supervisors that he would never perform the required work. This defiance continued even after the supervisors' position was confirmed by the Union Steward, whose presence Hydorn requested. Indeed, Hydorn went so far as to say that the employer would have to fire him before he would comply. Therefore, the discharge letter was accurate in stating that Hydorn had refused to follow the instructions and direct orders of his supervisors. 34 This notwithstanding, the Board found that the Respondent's stated reason for discharging Hydorn is false. Detroit News, 2004 WL 2203014, at . Why? Because, according to the Board, while Hydorn may have exhibited insubordinate behavior on August 25, we agree with the [ALJ] that `he never defied a direct order to remedy a pending paper drag.' Id. (quoting Decision, slip op. at 11, J.A. 15). At oral argument, the Board's counsel attempted to explain the Board's theory: Who knows what would have happened if they had actually let [Hydorn] . . . . process the papers? He may have agreed to do it. Recording of Oral Argument at 19:46. 35 The Board's claim is disingenuous. Hydorn precipitated the incident leading to his discharge by stating, in unequivocal terms, that he would not perform the specific, clearly delineated duties associated with his job. An employee like Hydorn can refuse to follow a direct order to perform specific work that is pending at the time the order is given, or he can refuse to perform that work when it arises in the future. In either case, the refusal to perform the duties of the job is a flagrant act of insubordination. In other words, in either instance, an employee who, like Hydorn, says he will not perform work that is within the compass of his assigned duties has flatly defied the instructions of management. The orders given to Hydorn were not hypothetical and neither were Hydorn's refusals. Therefore, we find that Detroit News' discharge notice to Hydorn was not false, as the Board found, in stating that Hydorn was fired for his refusal to follow the instructions and the direct order given by [his] supervisor.