Nichols v. Auto Club Services – 12.158

Nichols v. Auto Club Services & UIA
Digest No. 12.158

Section 421.29(1)(b)

Cite as: Nichols v Auto Club Services, Inc, Unpublished Opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals, Issued November 19, 2015 (Docket No. 14-001823-AE).

View/download the full decision

Appeal Pending: No
Claimant: Aisha Nichols
Employer: Auto Club Services Inc.
Date of Decision: November 19, 2015

HOLDING: Absences for good cause in violation of an employer’s no-fault attendance policy do not constitute misconduct under MCL 421.29(1)(b).

FACTS: In October 2012, claimant was hired as a customer sales and service representative for Auto Club Services Incorporated (“ACS”). After working for 90 days, ACS employees earned three days off from work for every six months. ACS had a written no-fault attendance policy with no written exceptions, and exceptions were very rare in practice. Between December 3, 2012, and February 5, 2013, claimant received three written discipline notices, two of which were related to absences or tardiness.

On February 28, 2013, while driving to work, claimant’s vision blurred, and she was unable to see. Claimant had previously experienced blurred vision and believed it was caused by “having a thyroid storm.” She left a voicemail with ACS informing them the (1) the reason for her absence was personal and (2) she could explain her absence upon her return on March 1, 2013.

Upon returning on March 1, 2013, ACS discharged claimant for her absence pursuant to their no-fault attendance policy. While being discharged, claimant informed ACS she felt unwell and could not see on February 28th. She did not provide medical documentation explaining her absence on the aforementioned date but had previously warned her employer she was not feeling well.

Claimant was disqualified from unemployment benefits pursuant to MCL 421.29(1)(b). During claimant’s hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), the parties stipulated her absence was due to an illness, but there is a dispute whether the ALJ accepted that stipulation. The ALJ and subsequently, the Michigan Compensation Appellate Compensation (“MCAC”) and Wayne Circuit Court affirmed claimant’s determination of disqualified from benefits under MCL 421.29(1)(b). Claimant appeals arguing the lower tribunals’ (1) decisions were contrary to law and (2) fact finding was unsupported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.

DECISION: Claimant is not disqualified for misconduct pursuant to MCL 421.29(1)(b) because the absences were beyond her control, and thus, she had good cause for said absence.

RATIONALE: Misconduct has been defined as “conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interest as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee.” Carter v. Mich. Employment Security Comm., 364 Mich. 538, 541; 111 NW2d 817 (1961). However, infractions that may cause termination do not necessarily constitute misconduct under MCL 421.29(1)(b). Hagenbuch v. Plainwell Paper Co., Inc., 153 Mich. App. 834, 837-838; 396 NW2d 556 (1986). Absenteeism and tardiness for reasons not beyond a claimant’s control constitute misconduct. Id at 837. However, absenteeism and tardiness for reasons beyond a claimant’s control which are otherwise with good cause do not constitute misconduct. Washington v. Amway Grand Plaza, 135 Mich. App. 652, 658; 354 NW2d 299 (1984).

The court argued the basis of claimant’s discharge was her accumulation of absences in violation of ACS’ attendance policy, not claimant’s failure to notify ACS of her medical condition to explain her final absence. This was confirmed by an ACS senior employee who testified that claimant would have been discharged due to the absences, regardless of whether she provided an explanation. Claimant provided evidence that her absences and tardiness prior to the February 28th incident were due to one or more chronic medical conditions related to her thyroid. Thus, these absences were beyond her control and constituted good cause.

The lower tribunals’ factual findings and ACS’s offered evidence was not inconsistent with claimant’s showing of good cause for her absences. Furthermore, the lower tribunals did not determine that claimant’s absences were without good cause and thus, erred in disqualifying claimant under MCL 421.29(1)(b). The Court held claimant was wrongfully disqualified for misconduct and remanded for further proceedings.

Digest Author: Sean Higgins, Michigan Law, Class of 2017
Digest Updated: 3/27/2016

Stephens v Howmet Turbine Components – 12.24

Stephens v Howmet Turbine Components
Digest no. 12.24

Section 29(1)(b)

Cite as: Stephens v Howmet Turbine Components, unpublished opinion of the Muskegon Circuit Court, issued April 7, 1983 (Docket No. 82-17057 AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Annie J. Stephens
Employer: Howmet Turbine Components
Docket no.: B82 03101 82966
Date of decision: April 7, 1983

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Claimant wilfully disregarded the interests of her employer by failing to appear at work for three consecutive work days, and by failing to properly notify her employer.

FACTS: Claimant was terminated for being absent three consecutive days. During these three days claimant failed to provide proper notification to her employer. The current Collective Bargaining Agreement, which establishes company policy, explicitly directs employees to contact the personnel department by telephone or in person and give notice of intended absence.

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

RATIONALE: The Court adopted the definition of misconduct articulated in Carter v Employment Security Commission, 364 Mich 538, 541 (1961).

A harsh ruling on the meaning of misconduct was handed down in Wickey v Employment Security Commission, 369 Mich 487 (1963). There, a seaman aboard a ship went ashore to attend a movie and failed to return to his ship before departure. This was his first offense but the Court stated that “an employer has a right to expect his employees to return on time.” Thus, the Court found misconduct for one day may be sufficient to deny an employee benefits. The underlying principles of the Carter and Wickey kind of cases place a duty on an employee to present himself on a daily basis, or to inform his employer when he cannot do so. Violations of that duty demonstrate disregard both of employer’s interests and of the employee’s duties.

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