{
  "id": 8527747,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: JEFFREY CHAVIS, Appellee and GUILFORD MILLS, INC., Employer and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Chavis",
  "decision_date": "1982-02-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 8118SC379",
  "first_page": "635",
  "last_page": "638",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "55 N.C. App. 635"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "296 N.W. 636",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.",
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 Wis. 249",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wis.",
      "case_ids": [
        8680580
      ],
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wis/237/0249-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 S.E. 2d 210",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 N.C. App. 340",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555463
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/17/0340-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 S.E. 2d 553",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "556"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 N.C. App. 215",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2646082
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "220"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/51/0215-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 S.E. 210",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "212-13"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 96-14",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(2)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 N.C. App. 340",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555463
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "343-44"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/17/0340-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 394,
    "char_count": 7434,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.807,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4139880355958977
    },
    "sha256": "aa46f7aba48fcd07423109c959e5222bc48fcfdb2b47c6e58ce50a4f01f55589",
    "simhash": "1:1578e0ac49ae4e2d",
    "word_count": 1181
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:47.759339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge Hedrick concurs.",
      "Judge MARTIN (Robert M.) dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF: JEFFREY CHAVIS, Appellee and GUILFORD MILLS, INC., Employer and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, Appellant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Chief Judge.\nAppellant\u2019s sole assignment of error is that the Superior Court erred in finding that the Commission did not properly apply the law to the facts. The trial court concluded that upon the facts found, employee\u2019s behavior did not constitute \u201cmisconduct\u201d within the meaning of G.S. 96-14(2), which provides that an individual shall not be entitled to unemployment compensation if his unemployment results from his having been \u201cdischarged for misconduct connected with his work.\u201d\nThis Court, in In re Collingsworth, 17 N.C. App. 340, 194 S.E. 2d 210 (1973), discussed at some length the meaning of \u201cmisconduct\u201d as it relates to unemployment compensation. We quoted, with approval, the Wisconsin Court in Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 296 N.W. 636 (1941). There the Court defined \u201cmisconduct,\u201d as set out in the majority opinion, as \u201cconduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer\u2019s interest as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, . . ..\u201d\nThe evidence in this case indicates that the employee had been given the privilege of not reporting for work on a Saturday when he was supposed to work upon the condition that he work the next Saturday. He did not report the next Saturday but went to a ball game with no notification to his supervisor that he would not report for work. The supervisor approached him to determine why he had not reported for work as scheduled. Obviously, the supervisor had every right to make this inquiry. His responsibility to his employer required it. Rather than answering the perfectly legitimate question, the employee, in a loud voice, accused the supervisor of harassing him and demanded a conference with Chuck Hayes. The conduct continued in the conference, where the employee continued his accusations in a loud and belligerent voice, also accusing his supervisor and other employees of trying to pick up his girl friend, who also worked at Guilford Mills. It is clear to me that the conduct of this employee constituted complete disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee. This is an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer\u2019s interest and is misconduct connected with his work within the meaning of the statute.\nThe Appeals Referee and the Commission, which adopted the Referee\u2019s decision, properly applied the law to the facts.\nReversed.\nJudge Hedrick concurs.\nJudge MARTIN (Robert M.) dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Chief Judge."
      },
      {
        "text": "Judge Martin (Robert M.)\ndissenting.\n\u201cMisconduct\u201d is not defined within N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 96-14(2), but our Court in In re Collingsworth, 17 N.C. App. 340, 343-44, 194 S.E. 210, 212-13 (1973) quoted with approval the following definition:\n\u201c[T]he term \u2018misconduct\u2019 [in connection with one\u2019s work] is limited to conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer\u2019s interest as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer\u2019s interests or of the employee\u2019s duties and obligations to his employer . .\nI agree with the trial court that the appellee\u2019s action in saying that he was tired of being harassed, raising his voice at supervisory personnel, and accusing the supervisor of trying to pick up appellee\u2019s girl friend do not meet this definition of misconduct. This conduct falls far short of the misconduct found in Yelverton v. Furniture Industries, 51 N.C. App. 215, 220, 275 S.E. 2d 553, 556 (1981) wherein the Court found that:\nThe claimant\u2019s actions in (1) threatening a fellow employee with bodily harm, (2) leaving his assigned work area for the avowed purpose of going to another work area to harass a fellow employee, and (3) picking up a wooden post in the course of an argument with the fellow employee, were sufficient to constitute \u201can intentional and substantial disregard of the employer\u2019s interests.\u201d They thus constituted \u201cmisconduct connected with his work\u201d sufficient to disqualify him from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.\nFor these reasons, I hold that the judgment of the Superior Court should be affirmed.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "Judge Martin (Robert M.)"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "R. Horace Swiggett, Jr., for employee appellee.",
      "Gail C. Arneke, C. Coleman Billingsley, Jr., and William H. Guy, Staff Attorneys for Employment Security Commission of North Carolina, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: JEFFREY CHAVIS, Appellee and GUILFORD MILLS, INC., Employer and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, Appellant\nNo. 8118SC379\n(Filed 2 February 1982)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 108.1\u2014 unemployment compensation \u2014misconduct affecting discharge \u2014 denial of benefits proper\nWhere an employee failed to report for work and upon questioning by his supervisor responded by raising his voice, saying \u201cI am damn tired of being harassed\u201d and where the employee continued to raise his voice at a meeting with his supervisor and other persons and was discharged, his behavior constituted \u201cmisconduct\u201d within the meaning of G.S. 96-14(2), and the employee was not thereafter entitled to unemployment compensation.\nJudge Martin (Robert M.) dissenting.\nAPPEAL by Employment Security Commission from Collier, Judge. Judgment entered 12 February 1981, Superior Court, GUILFORD County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 November 1981.\nJeffrey Chavis, employee of Guilford Mills, Inc., filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits resulting from his having been discharged by his employer. A Claims Adjudicator for Employment Security Commission of North Carolina (hereinafter \u201cthe Commission\u201d) notified employee that \u201cyour being discharged from Guilford Mills, Inc., because your employer became dissatisfied with your attitude does not constitute misconduct in connection with the work.\u201d An Appeals Referee reversed this decision, and the reversal was affirmed by the Chief Deputy Commissioner. Employee appealed to the Superior Court which reversed the decision and remanded the matter to the Commission, finding that the Commission had not properly applied the law to the facts.\nThe pertinent finding of fact, accepted by employee on appeal, is as follows:\n3. The claimant was discharged from his employment with Guilford Mills, because of his belligerent attitude toward his supervisors. On the claimant\u2019s last work day, he was asked by his supervisor why he had not been to work that previous Saturday. Because the claimant had been excused the prior Saturday, the claimant had promised a supervisor that he would be in to work on Saturday, November 17, 1979. When the claimant\u2019s supervisor asked the claimant where he had been on Saturday, the claimant responded by raising his voice saying, \u201cI am damn tired of being harassed. I want to talk to Chuck Hayes.\u201d The supervisor then brought the claimant into a meeting with the plant manager and assistant superintendent wherein the claimant continued to raise his voice at his supervisor and the other persons at the meeting when being talked to about his attitude at work. The claimant began accusing his supervisor and other employees of trying to pick up his girl friend who also worked at Guilford Mills. Considering the claimant\u2019s conduct and attitude on this morning, the claimant was discharged.\nR. Horace Swiggett, Jr., for employee appellee.\nGail C. Arneke, C. Coleman Billingsley, Jr., and William H. Guy, Staff Attorneys for Employment Security Commission of North Carolina, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0635-01",
  "first_page_order": 667,
  "last_page_order": 670
}