Court Opinion

ID: 9686887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:10:45.929682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:22.788509
License: Public Domain

M. F. Cavanagh, P.J.
(dissenting). 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.1 The referee found that the plaintiff had been discharged for "misconduct connected with his work” pursuant to MCL 421.29(1l)(b); MSA 17.531(1)(b). This decision was affirmed by the MESC Appeal Board, with one member dissenting; the circuit court also upheld the referee’s determination on the grounds that competent, material and substantial evidence existed in the record to support his findings.
The facts are essentially not in dispute. Plaintiff was discharged by his employer as the result of an incident in which he came through a metal cafeteria door with sufficient force to break two sets of *700bolts connected to the door’s closing mechanism, as well as damaging the door’s hinges and frame. The reason given for the discharge was abuse of company property, in violation of company rules. At the hearing, testimony showed that the plaintiff was reprimanded for a similar incident in which he threw a board towards a wood pile without looking. By misdirection, the board broke a window. The referee found that these two incidents, which taken individually may not have constituted misconduct, established a pattern of misconduct under Miller v F W Woolworth Co, 359 Mich 342, 354; 102 NW2d 728 (1960), sufficient for disqualification under MCL 421.29(1)(b); MSA 17.531(1)(b).
The first issue raised by the plaintiff concerns the proper standard for review of administrative decisions. This standard is well established. The reviewing court has the power to consider questions of law and fact, but may reverse an order of the MESC referee or appeal board only if the decision is contrary to law or is unsupported by competent, material evidence on the whole record. Const 1963, art 6, § 28; MCL 421.38; MSA 17.540. Where no dispute exists as to the underlying facts, the question presented is the proper application or interpretation of the law. Thomas v Employment Security Comm, 356 Mich 665; 97 NW2d 784 (1959), Baker v General Motors Corp, 74 Mich App 237, 244-245, fn 2; 254 NW2d 45 (1977). The scope of this review clearly includes the soundness of the MESC’s interpretation of misconduct. Wickey v Employment Security Comm, 369 Mich 487, 492; 120 NW2d 181 (1963). The trial court therefore erred in failing to review the issue of misconduct.
Plaintiff, in addition to disputing the MESC finding of a pattern of misconduct sufficient to disqualify him for unemployment benefits under *701Miller v F W Woolworth Co, supra, also asserts that the single incident involving the door did not constitute misconduct.
It is clear, first of all, that while this incident may have justified the plaintiffs discharge for a breach of company rules, not every such breach rises to the level of misconduct sufficient to disqualify the employee for unemployment benefits. Reed v Employment Security Comm, 364 Mich 395; 110 NW2d 907 (1961).
To justify the finding of misconduct in the instant case, the plaintiffs conduct must fall within the definition set out in Carter v Employment Security Comm, 364 Mich 538, 541; 111 NW2d 817 (1961):
"The term 'misconduct’ * * * is 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. 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.”
Although the plaintiffs force in opening the door was under the circumstances negligent and unsatisfactory conduct, I cannot conclude that it was misconduct within the meaning of the statute. His act was not a breach of duty endangering human life and property, Bell v Employment Secu*702rity Comm, 359 Mich 649; 103 NW2d 584 (1960) (misconduct found where a boiler tender, charged with responsibility for a potentially dangerous piece of machinery, fell asleep on the job). Nor was his conduct "fundamentally disruptive of orderly conduct of work and of an employer’s right to direct” it as was the employee’s disobedience of a foreman’s direct order and threat of violence in Carter, supra, 542. In fact, the referee implicitly found that the incident involving the door, standing alone, was insufficient to establish misconduct. Rather, he felt it necessary to rely on plaintiffs prior conduct in order to justify his conclusions. In my view, the incident of the two-by-four provided even less justification for the referee’s decision than did the acts that finally caused plaintiffs discharge. I therefore conclude that this single incident is insufficient to meet the standards of misconduct in Carter, supra. In so concluding, I am mindful of the remedial purpose of the unemployment compensation act. To effectuate this purpose, its provisions must be liberally construed; we thus must view with caution any narrowing of the act that would deprive persons entitled thereunder of benefits. Godsol v Unemployment Compensation Comm, 302 Mich 652, 665; 5 NW2d 519 (1942), Fifth District Republican Committee v Employment Security Comm, 19 Mich App 449, 452; 172 NW2d 825 (1969), lv den 383 Mich 760 (1970).
I next examine the referee’s conclusion that the two instances in which the plaintiff damaged company property constituted a series of acts establishing a pattern of misconduct. These two episodes occurred eight months apart; the earlier of the two had resulted in a three-day disciplinary lay-off.
The fact that these two instances were distant in time from each other does not prevent a finding of *703a "pattern of misconduct”. Giddens v Employment Security Comm, 4 Mich App 526, 535; 145 NW2d 294 (1966), lv den 378 Mich 744 (1966). Giddens, however, defines this pattern as a type of "last straw doctrine”:
"Indeed, if we were to sum up the latitude to be permitted an employer in dealing with a recalcitrant employee who has consistently demonstrated disregard for the employer’s interests, we might call it a 'last straw’ doctrine in which the final infraction, * * * is of such a nature that it demonstrates conclusively the employee’s utter disregard for the employer’s interests.”
Other cases finding a pattern of misconduct adopted a total picture approach to focus on the consistency, duration and gravity of the conduct to determine if the employee’s behavior evinced "a wilful disregard of [the] employer’s interests”. Booker v Employment Security Comm, 369 Mich 547, 551; 120 NW2d 169 (1963).2
1 agree with the plaintiff, therefore, that the referee erred in finding that the two instances complained of constituted a pattern of misconduct sufficient to disqualify the plaintiff for benefits under MCL 421.29(1)(b); MSA 17.531(1)(b). The total picture presented reveals that the plaintiffs behavior, while negligent, was not so continuous and egregious that it evidenced his utter disregard for his employer’s interests. Giddens v Employment Security Comm, supra. For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse.

 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.

 The pattern of misconduct in Booker, supra, was based on the employee’s long history of absenteeism, tardiness and intoxication. For other examples of this type of misconduct, see Miller v F W Woolworth Co, supra, (misconduct found in employee’s consistent ill-temper, rudeness to customers and insubordination, despite repeated warnings) and Giddens v Employment Security Comm, supra, (employee’s record revealed numerous disciplinary lay-offs and a last-chance warning prior to the final episode of absenteeism that caused his discharge).