Summary of Issue: Negligence

Decision 76093 Full Text of Decision 76093

The claimant worked for a pharmaceutical manufacturer and was familiar with his job duties as well as the policies and procedures. He was dismissed on April 13, 2009 for his willful failure to observe the proper policies and procedures as a result of an incident where an improper procedure occurred. He and a new employee were working together when he transferred a product to the wrong tote. The claimant tried to cover up the error but the new employee felt an error had been made and approached the supervisor. The representative of the manufacturer stated that the product improperly handled that day was contaminated and could cause severe physical harm to affected individuals. The claimant had received previous warnings about his failure to observe proper procedure. The appeal by the claimant is dismissed.

Decision 27127 Full Text of Decision 27127

There are several degrees of negligence, and gross negligence may surely constitute misconduct justifying dismissal. On the other hand, negligence may also be regarded as incompetence, and thus justify dismissing the employee for incompetence.

Decision 24405 Full Text of Decision 24405

The Board held that carelessness does not have to be intentional, that it is sufficient that it be within the employee's control and responsibility. It is obvious that this test is not the test applied in TUCKER. The Board has erred in its application of the law.

Decision 22641 Full Text of Decision 22641

To the extent that the Board relied on the claimant's "negligence", I think that it did not address the real question at issue and therefore erred in law. The concept of misconduct goes beyond that of negligence, for it implies a deliberate or voluntary act by an employee in regard to his employer.