12. Misconduct

Benaske v General Telephone Co of Michigan – 12.28

Benaske v General Telephone Co of Michigan
Digest no. 12.28

Section 29(1)(b)

Cite as: Benaske v Gen Tel Co of Michigan, unpublished opinion of the Isabella County Circuit Court, issued March 5, 1980 (Docket No. 79 008439 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Raymond O. Benaske
Employer: General Telephone Co.
Docket no.: B77 444 55273
Date of decision: March 5, 1980

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where an employer has not proved any connection between a claimant’s work and the actual events resulting in the claimant’s arrest, a charge of off-duty criminal conduct is not misconduct under the Act.

FACTS: A telephone installation and repair worker was discharged five days after he was arrested and charged with a felony, criminal sexual conduct in the third degree. The incident leading to the charge took place after working hours, and in a county outside the claimant’s service area. The claimant later entered a plea of guilty to the misdemeanor or contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

DECISION: The claimant is not disqualified for misconduct.

RATIONALE: “To comply with the intent and language of the Act, the Board must restrict itself to standards that (A) put the burden on the employer to prove (B) a work connection by competent, material and substantial evidence. MESA 38. Standards that demand less or consider extraneous factors are erroneous as a matter of law.

“The evidence does not support a finding that claimant was discharged for ‘misconduct connected with his work.’ Rather, he was discharged for merely having been accused of off-duty misconduct. Nor has the employer proved any connection between the actual events leading to claimant’s arrest and claimant’s work.”

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