12. Misconduct

Countryside Care Center v Chenault – 12.23

Countryside Care Center v Chenault
Digest no. 12.23

Section 29(1)(b)

Cite as: Countryside Care Ctr v Chenault, unpublished opinion of the Jackson Circuit Court, issued April 7, 1983 (Docket No. 83-32410 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Marjorie A. Chenault
Employer: Countryside Care Center
Docket no.: B82 05347 84134
Date of decision: April 7, 1983

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: A dissenting opinion from the Board of Review was adopted … ” … sleeping … (w)as, of itself, of a sufficiently serious nature to justify the discharge for misconduct”.

FACTS: The claimant, who worked as a nurses’ aide, was fired for sleeping while on duty. The employer operated a nursing home for the elderly. Employer previously warned the employees that they were not to sleep at work. This was a verbal directive only and was not in writing.

DECISION: The claimant is disqualified under Section 29(1)(b) of the Act.

RATIONALE: The Court adopted the dissenting opinion of a Board of Review member who held:

“Despite claimant’s denial, the record established that the claimant was, in fact, sleeping, and this conduct, without regard to the fact that other employees were also sleeping, was, of itself, of a sufficiently serious nature to justify the imposition of the disqualification provided by the discharge for misconduct section of the Act.”

“Clearly, the claimant’s conduct in this case exhibited the kind of disregard of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer which are considered misconduct under the definition of Carter v Employment Security Commission, 364 Mich 538 (1961), adopting the definition of misconduct set forth in Boynton Cab Co v Neubeck, 237 Wisc 249 (1941).”

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