Court Opinion

ID: 9727132
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:20:49.500344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:33.920117
License: Public Domain

Kelly, J.
(dissenting). Appellant was “discharged for misconduct connected with his work.”* The fact that appellant was guilty of misconduct was-not disputed by the union.
Appellant was guilty “of wanton or wilful disregard of the employer’s interest” and a “deliberate violation of the employer’s rules, a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the-right to expect of his employee.”†
The appeal board’s finding that: “In our opinion the referee has properly found that the claimant’s action constituted misconduct connected with his work,” as sustained by the trial court, should be affirmed.
Dethmers, C. J., and Carr, J., concurred with Kelly, J.

 See seetion 29 of the employment seenrity statute (CLS 1956, § 421.29 [Stat Ann 1957 Cum Supp § 17.531]), as quoted in Justice Edwards’ opinion.

 Quotations from Justice Edwards’ accepted interpretation of the misconduct clause.