Nassif v. Northwest Benefits, Inc.
Digest No. 12.147
Cite as: Nassif v Northwest Benefits, Unpublished Opinion of the Saginaw County Circuit Court, Issued Sep. 30, 2008 (Docket No.07-066426 AE 4).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Kevin C. Nassif
Employer: Northwest Benefits, Inc.
Docket no.: 07-066426 AE 4
Date of decision: September 30, 2008
HOLDING: The decision of the board of review is affirmed. Claimant is disqualified for unemployment benefits under the misconduct provisions of 29(1)(b) of MES.
FACTS: Claimant worked for Northwest Tire & Service Inc., alk/a Northwest Benefits Inc. as a store manager. His employment was terminated for a series of claimed false statements and misconduct occurring within a relatively short time period.
Following his termination from employment claimant was initially found qualified for unemployment benefits. This initial decision of the Unemployment Agency was affirmed following a referee hearing but was subsequently reversed on appeal to the Board of Review. Both the ALJ and the Board found evidence of misconduct.
Claimant is appealing the Board of Review’s finding of misconduct. Claimant additionally contends that the Board’s determination is the product of unlawful procedure and/or otherwise affected by substantial and material irregularities based on two different letters he received from his former employer.
The first letter cited by the claimant was from his former employer’s counsel informing him that pursuant to the terms of termination he was to have no contact with any Northwest stores or current employees for any reason. Claimant understood this as meaning he was prohibited from contacting any employees even to seek their help and to testify on his behalf, and that had he known this was not the case he would have better prepared his case.
The second letter requested that he consent to written argument before the Board of Review. Claimant questions whether the Board of Review considered any additional written arguments or testimony before making its decision and if so, should he not have been afforded the opportunity to respond
DECISION: When viewed in totality, these incidents establish a willful disregard of the employer’s interests and constitute “misconduct” within the meaning of the statute. Further, there is not enough evidence to support claimant’s contention that the Board’s determination was the product of unlawful procedure and/or otherwise affected by substantial and material irregularities.
RATIONALE: In regards to the incidents in question, the court found that while the claimant’s conduct runs the continuum from mere negligence to the deliberate violation of rules and apparent indifference to one’s obligations as an employee, when viewed in totality, these incidents establish a willful disregard of the employer’s interests and constitute “misconduct” within the meaning of the statute.
In regards to claimant’s contention that the Board’s determination was the product of unlawful procedure and/or otherwise affected by substantial and material irregularities., the court found an insufficient basis for setting aside the decision of the Board of Review and/or ordering a new hearing.
In regards to the first letter, the court found that the claimant has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court that additional testimony would have made any difference to the determination of any issues of importance to the case since all the persons who were directly involved in the incidents that led to claimant’s termination testified at the hearing. The court did find that claimant could have called additional witnesses, the testimony that they could have been able to provide would not have shed any additional light on his termination.
In regards to the claimant contention that the Board’s determination was the product of unlawful procedure In regards to the second letter cited by the claimant, the court found that there was nothing in the file to indicate the Board of Review considered anything other than the record made at the referee hearing. There was no request for additional evidence, no oral presentation made, and if the Board did consider any additional briefs, it was only by claimant’s consent. The copy of the letter made part of the file does not indicate that claimant even signed the incorporated consent language found in the body of the letter. The court found that at present, all that can be said is that no consent was given and no additional written argument was made.
Digest Author: Cydney Warburton, Michigan Law, Class of 2017
Digest Updated: 3/1/2016