Court Opinion

ID: 9686886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:10:45.925553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:22.786710
License: Public Domain

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.1 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.2 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:
*698"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,3 and concluded that plaintiff could be disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits under the misconduct provision of the act4 for a discharge which resulted from a "pattern of misconduct”.
The standard for disqualifying misconduct is enunciated in Carter v Employment Security Comm5 as:
*699"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).