Page 555

              DIGEST OF ADJUDICATION PRECEDENTS MC
MC-141 (01/11)
At a hearing before a Referee, the employer testified that published company rules prohibited the re-use of single service items.
The claimant testified that he was unaware of any such company rules. The employer testified that each manager who had attended
its training course had received a copy of the rules. The claimant testified that, while he had attended the training course, he had
never received a copy of the rules. The employer further testified that State rules and regulations on food service sanitation
prohibited the re-use of single service items.
HELD: In order for a disqualification for a rule violation to be imposed, it would have to be established that the claimant violated
a known rule. Knowledge can be actual or implied; that is, it is sufficient that the worker knew - or should have known - that his
actions were not in compliance with the reasonable standards of behavior expected of him as an employee.
In the instant case, even if, as the claimant contended, he was unaware of precise company rules, he should have known that the
practice of re-using disposable service items was an unsanitary practice, and, as such, was a violation of not only his employer's
policy, but also of State regulations pertaining to sanitary requirements in the service of food to the public. The totality of the
evidence established that the claimant's failure to comply with either his employer's rules or the State's regulations was inexcusable
and constituted misconduct connected with the work within the meaning of Section 602A.
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Misconduct/MC 485.8
DOCKET/DATE ABR-85-3359/10-2-85
AUTHORITY Section 602A of the Act
TITLE Violation of Company Rule
SUBTITLE Safety Regulation
CROSS-REFERENCE MC 363.05, Personal Appearance; MC 485.2
The claimant was employed as a Carpenter in a nuclear power plant. His job would require him to work in potentially radioactive
areas, where the wearing of a securely fitted mask, to protect against contamination, was mandatory. So that the claimant's mask
would fit properly, he was requested to cut off his beard. When the claimant refused to cut off his beard, he was discharged.
HELD: Employers have the right to prescribe certain standards of dress for their employees. Such standards may be prescribed
because the employer wishes to maintain a certain "atmosphere," or appearance of neatness or cleanliness, or to protect employees'
safety. A rule requiring the wearing of certain items deemed necessary for safety is generally reasonable, unless outweighed by
special considerations, and a worker who is discharged for a willful violation of such a rule is generally discharged for misconduct
connected with his work. In the instant case, the employer's need for safety measures outweighed the claimant's interest in
maintaining his beard. The claimant's refusal to comply with his employer's reasonable safety regulation constituted misconduct
connected with his work within the meaning of Section 602A.
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Misconduct/MC 485.8
DOCKET/DATE 84-BRD-3829/3-19-84
AUTHORITY 1./S-602A
TITLE Violation of Company Rule
SUBTITLE Safety Regulation
CROSS-REFERENCE None
The claimant had received written warnings about horseplay, and the employer held regular safety meetings with all employees. On
the date of discharge, the claimant and co-worker pulled a ladder out of a pit as a joke with the idea of marooning other workers in
the pit. Unbeknown to them, there were workers on the ladder, who fell to the bottom of the pit. No one was injured in the fall.
HELD: The claimant could have caused physical injury to his co-workers and a loss of time and money to the employer. The
claimant's carelessness or negligence was of such a degree as to manifest intentional disregard of a standard of behavior which the
employer had a right to expect of him and of the duties and obligations he owed to his employer. In light of the prior warnings, we
must conclude that the claimant knew or should have known that such conduct could result in his discharge.
He was discharged for misconduct connected with his work and is disqualified for benefits.