{ "id": 8522628, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: JESSIE B. WILLIAMS, Appellant v. SCM PROCTOR SILEX and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. SCM Proctor Silex", "decision_date": "1983-02-01", "docket_number": "No. 8212SC222", "first_page": "572", "last_page": "575", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "60 N.C. App. 572" } ], "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": "289 S.E. 2d 357", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "359" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569932 ], "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "375" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0373-01" ] }, { "cite": "296 N.W. 636", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "year": 1941, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "640" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "237 Wis. 249", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8680580 ], "year": 1941, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "259-60" } ], "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, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "212-13", "parenthetical": "quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "17 N.C. App. 340", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8555463 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "343-44", "parenthetical": "quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/17/0340-01" ] }, { "cite": "263 S.E. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "2" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 N.C. App. 718", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554919 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "720" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/44/0718-01" ] }, { "cite": "275 S.E. 2d 553", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "555" }, { "page": "555" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "51 N.C. App. 215", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 2646082 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "218" }, { "page": "218-19" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/51/0215-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 S.E. 2d 292", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "296" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "259 N.C. 190", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559687 ], "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "194" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/259/0190-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 S.E. 2d 245", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "248" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 598", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575710 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "604" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0598-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 422, "char_count": 6836, "ocr_confidence": 0.803, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.6040425471297045e-07, "percentile": 0.8197813849378863 }, "sha256": "f051b871f0720a247d0f3655d0e4645aac9c4d4c9b568c89efbd9194e825b7c9", "simhash": "1:49c908ca8c6fcffc", "word_count": 1089 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:52:46.639047+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Arnold and Hill concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF: JESSIE B. WILLIAMS, Appellant v. SCM PROCTOR SILEX and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, Appellees" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WHICHARD, Judge.\nClaimant appeals from a judgment affirming a decision by defendant Employment Security Commission that she is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits because she was discharged from employment for misconduct connected with her work. She contends the pertinent findings are not supported by competent evidence, and that the conclusion of law that she was discharged for misconduct connected with her work was therefore erroneous. We affirm.\nThe Commission made the following pertinent findings of fact:\n2. Claimant was discharged from this job for reporting an inaccurate number of parts run on her machine on the last shift that she worked. The claimant\u2019s machine had a counter attached to it which counted the number of parts the machine produced. It was possible for employees to alter the number on the counter. On the claimant\u2019s last day of work, her counter recorded 4,272 parts. The claimant\u2019s supervisor counted the parts that had been run on the machine after the claimant\u2019s shift finished and recorded 1,663 parts. Thus the claimant\u2019s count was 2,600 parts too high. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain the discrepancy between actual parts and the number showing on the counter to the employer. She did not offer a satisfactory explanation.\n3. The claimant has stated that some of the parts she had run were put in boxes partially filled by the previous shift. The employer\u2019s representative checked the boxes done by the shift prior to the claimant\u2019s and discovered them to have been full when the claimant\u2019s shift started. The discrepancy in the count caused the claimant to be overpaid by approximately $31.00.\nThese findings are supported by the following competent evidence:\nClaimant\u2019s supervisor testified that his supervisor instructed him to assist in a count of claimant\u2019s parts. He saw the counting and personally assisted with it. Claimant\u2019s machine had been \u201cchecked out\u201d by an electrician both before and after she started work.\nThe count of claimant\u2019s parts revealed that \u201cthey were off.\u201d This meant that claimant \u201ccould not have run the parts that she said she had run, that she had put down on her time card.\u201d Claimant had \u201cput down 4,272 pieces on her card.\u201d The count showed 1,663 parts to be \u201cher day\u2019s production.\u201d\nThe assistant personnel manager for defendant company also testified that claimant had said she ran 4,272 parts, while the maximum number of parts the company could account for was 1,663. He stated: \u201cThis was a difference of 2,609 parts. If we had let this go it would have resulted in something like a $31.00 overpayment.\u201d He indicated that the boxes from the previous shift were full, so the only boxes claimant \u201chad to put elements in were empty . . . .\u201d\nThis witness further testified that the machines could be \u201ctripped\u201d so that the counter would count without actually having parts, and that there had been questions regarding claimant\u2019s count over a period of a year. The company had been watching the counts of claimant and others very closely. When it had questioned claimant before, she always had a response which left the company with some uncertainty. On this occasion, however, the company \u201ccould not come up with any excuses.\u201d\nBecause the foregoing evidence supports the above findings, the findings are conclusive on appeal. G.S. 96-15(i); In re Thomas, 281 N.C. 598, 604, 189 S.E. 2d 245, 248 (1972); In re Abernathy, 259 N.C. 190, 194, 130 S.E. 2d 292, 296 (1963); Yelverton v. Furniture Industries, 51 N.C. App. 215, 218, 275 S.E. 2d 553, 555 (1981); In re Cantrell, 44 N.C. App. 718, 720, 263 S.E. 2d 1, 2 (1980). See also G.S. 96-4(m). The sole remaining question is whether these findings sustain the conclusion that claimant was disqualified for benefits by virtue of G.S. 96-14, which provides, in pertinent part:\nAn individual shall be disqualified for benefits:\n(2) . . . if it is determined by the Commission that such individual is, at the time such claim is filed, unemployed because he was discharged for misconduct connected with his work.\nG.S. 96-14 (Supp. 1981).\nIn determining whether facts found constitute \u201cmisconduct\u201d within the intent of G.S. 96-14(2), this Court has quoted with approval the following definition:\n* * * [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 interests] 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. * * *\nIn re Collingsworth, 17 N.C. App. 340, 343-44, 194 S.E. 2d 210, 212-13 (1973) (quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941)). See also Yelverton v. Furniture Industries, supra, 51 N.C. App. at 218-19, 275 S.E. 2d at 555. Our Supreme Court has, at least implicitly, approved this definition. See Intercraft Industries Corp. v. Morrison, 305 N.C. 373, 375, 289 S.E. 2d 357, 359 (1982).\nThat an employee\u2019s alteration of her production records, resulting in overpayment to the employee, constitutes wilful or wanton disregard of the employer\u2019s interest, in disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of the employee, can scarcely be gainsaid. The findings therefore support the conclusion that claimant\u2019s discharge was occasioned by \u201cmisconduct connected with [her] work,\u201d and her disqualification for benefits was accordingly appropriate.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Arnold and Hill concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WHICHARD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Lumbee River Legal Services, Inc., by Phillip Wright, for claimant appellant.", "V. Henry Gransee, Jr., for defendant appellee Employment Security Commission.", "No brief filed for defendant appellee SCM Proctor Silex." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: JESSIE B. WILLIAMS, Appellant v. SCM PROCTOR SILEX and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, Appellees\nNo. 8212SC222\n(Filed 1 February 1983)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 108.1\u2014 disqualification for unemployment benefits \u2014 discharge for misconduct\nAn employee\u2019s alteration of her production records, resulting in overpayment to the employee, constituted willful or wanton disregard of the employer\u2019s interest, in disregard of standards of behavior which the employer had a right to expect of the employee and supported the conclusion that claimant\u2019s discharge was occasioned by \u201cmisconduct connected with [her] work,\u201d and her disqualification for benefits was accordingly appropriate. G.S. 96-14(2).\nAppeal by claimant from Brewer, Judge. Judgment entered 28 October 1981 in Superior Court, HOKE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 January 1983.\nLumbee River Legal Services, Inc., by Phillip Wright, for claimant appellant.\nV. Henry Gransee, Jr., for defendant appellee Employment Security Commission.\nNo brief filed for defendant appellee SCM Proctor Silex." }, "file_name": "0572-01", "first_page_order": 604, "last_page_order": 607 }