Court Opinion

ID: 9725200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:34:27.514957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:12.476944
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
Claimant was first employed by ap-pellee First State Bank in September of 1956. She worked about a year as teller. Constant contact with the public, and the handling of large sums of money required by the job, made her nervous and ill. For this reason she requested, and was granted, a transfer from the job of teller to new duty as a general clerk. The new job apparently had no adverse effect on her nervous system.
It was shown that claimant had consulted a physician regarding her nervous condition. A letter from him, appearing in the record, recites: “The above patient is under treatment for anxiety. She feels that being a teller aggravates this condition.” This is the extent of adduced medical opinion.
February 1, 1960, claimant’s services were terminated by the bank. Reasons given were claimant’s incompetency and unsatisfactory work as clerk. She requested other work. The bank offered claimant her old job as teller. She refused such offer, stating that it would again make her nervous and ill. It was shown in such connection that although claimant was told that the teller job was the only available *546position, the hank did hire a bookkeeper a few days later.
Claimant applied for unemployment compensation February 3, 1960. A determination was made that claimant was not disqualified from receiving such benefits since she had not been discharged for misconduct or refusal to work under section 29 (CLS 1956, §421.29 [Stat Ann 1960 Rev §17.531]). In such determination it was concluded that there had been no wilful or wanton disregard of the employer’s interests which would constitute misconduct and that she had refused the proffered job solely for health reasons.
A statutory redetermination, made on request of the employer, resulted in affirmance of the above determination. Still another hearing was held, this time before a referee. He affirmed the prior determination and redetermination and was in turn affirmed by the appeal board. The Macomb county circuit court, having issued certiorari, reversed upon finding that claimant was disqualified because of her refusal to accept the teller’s job. She appeals.
Decision here, as in the companion ease of Detroit Gravure Corporation v. Michigan Employment Security Commission, 366 Mich 530, is controlled by the rule adopted by Mr. Justice Carr in Cassar v. Employment Security Commission, 343 Mich 380. For elucidation and amplification, see Detroit Gravure. The appeal board’s decision was rendered well within the area of discretion entrusted to it. The circuit court hence should have affirmed.
Reversed and remanded to the circuit court for entry of an order dismissing that court’s writ of certiorari. No costs.
Kavanagh, Otis M. Smith, and Adams, JJ., concurred with Black, J.