Categories
12. Misconduct

Banks v Ford Motor Co – 12.06

Banks v Ford Motor Co
Digest no. 12.06

Section 29(1)(b)

Cite as: Banks v Ford Motor Co, 123 Mich App 250 (1983).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: John L. Banks
Employer: Ford Motor Company
Docket no.: B79 06738 67680
Date of decision: February 10, 1983

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: “Disqualification may be based on an assault connected with the claimant’s work, even though the reasons for the assault are not related to the work.”

FACTS: “At approximately 10:45 p.m. on January 22, 1979, the claimant had entered the plant parking lot prior to beginning work on his shift. Another employee was moving his car from one space in the lot to another prior to finishing work on his shift. The claimant’s vehicle was struck by the vehicle driven by the other employee. The claimant and the other employee each got out of his car. While the other employee apologized, claimant opened a penknife and struck him with it in the neck and chest.”

DECISION: The claimant is disqualified for assault and battery.

RATIONALE: “(T)he assault occurred on company property. The assailant and his victim were both employees of Ford and were both at the plant to work. Under the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act of 1969, the injuries to the victim of the claimant’s assault arose out of and in the course of employment. MCL 418.301 (1)(3); MSA 17.237 (301)(1)(3). See Queen v General Motors Corp, 38 Mich App 630 (1972); Brady v Clark Equipment Co, 72 Mich App 274 (1976). The injury to, and potential for injury to, the employer’s interests is evident in the present case.”

Digest Author:  Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 11/90

Categories
12. Misconduct

MESC v Borucki – 12.17

MESC v Borucki
Digest no. 12.17

Section 29(1)(b)

Cite as: MESC v Borucki, unpublished opinion of the Wayne Circuit Court, issued June 30, 1982 (Docket No. 81-140409 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Arthur R. Borucki
Employer: North Detroit General Hospital
Docket no.: B78 11915 65930
Date of decision: June 30, 1982

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where an individual is involved in an assault and battery and is not the aggressor, the separation is not disqualifying.

FACTS: “The claimant had been verbally harassed and abused by a fellow employee in a confrontation at the time-card rack as claimant was preparing to leave work and the fellow employee was reporting to work … During the course of the confrontation, the fellow employee called the claimant an obscene name. The unrebutted testimony of a witness was that the fellow employee was abusive to the claimant because of the report claimant had written. In addition, the fellow employee, at the moment he spoke the abusive words to claimant, put up his hands in an aggressive gesture. The unrebutted testimony of the witness was that the fellow employee was the aggressor.”

DECISION: The claimant is not disqualified for misconduct discharge.

RATIONALE: “Where as here, the putative basis for disqualification is the misconduct of the employee, the burden of proof lies with the employer or charging party, Fresta v Miller, 7 Mich App 58 (1967) … The only res gestae witness to the above described event appearing at the hearing was a fellow employee, Beck. Beck testified that Bradley verbally abused the claimant to provoke an incident and called the claimant a vile name … The witness stated that Bradley assumed an aggressive posture throughout and that there was nothing defensive about his conduct.”

“Mindful of the remedial purposes of the Act and further mindful of the burden of proof in such proceedings, see for example, Diepenhorst v General Electric, 29 Mich App 651, 653 (1971) the determination of the Board of Review ‘that claimant is not disqualified for assault and battery’ is affirmed.”

Digest Author:  Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 6/91