This is аn appeal from the Wayne' circuit court in which appellant Michigan employment security commission contends that an emрloyee discharged by a corporation should be disqualified from unemployment compensation benefits because of misconduct. The facts as found by the referee and appeal board of the Michigan employment security commission indicated that thе discharge was based on the employee’s refusal to carry out a foreman’s order, and his subsequent threat to punch the foremаn in the nose. The circuit judge held that this was not misconduct within the meaning of the statute. We reverse.
Plaintiff Arthur Carter was employed by the Detroit Lead Corporation. He was assigned to operate a furnace. During the last day claimant worked, the president of the company noticed a pile of lead dust (dross) on the floor in front of Carter’s furnace; and he instructed the foreman, Yeerett Davis, to have Carter shovel the dross into the furnace. When the foreman directed Carter to shovel the dross into the furnace, Carter refused to do so. Davis then said he would shovel the dross in himself. At this point Davis contends (and Carter denies) that Carter threatened to punch him in the nose if he did. Davis reported this episode to his general manager and was told to leave Carter alone, and the following day the general mаnager discharged Carter.
The events as recited above are essentially as they were found by the referee, and as affirmed by thе majority of the appeal board of the Michigan employment security commission with 1 member dissenting. In this regard, claimant’s brief concedes:
“The claimant does not dispute these facts, except that he states that he did not threaten the foreman. However, for the purposes of this argument, and this appeal, we must concede that he did threaten the foreman, since such was the finding of the refеree, *541 adopted by the appeal board, and there was evidence in the record which can support such finding.”
This case wаs heard on certiorari by a Wayne circuit judge who held that the acts of claimant as stated above did not meet the definition of misсonduct previously set forth by this Court in
Cassar
v.
Employment Security Commission,
In these cases this Court adopted the classic definition of misconduct originally drafted by the Wisconsin supreme court in
Boynton Cab Company
v.
Neubeck,
237 Wis 249, 259, 260 (
“The term ‘misconduct’ * * * is limited to conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violаtions 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’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer. On the other hand mere inеfficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies оr ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good-faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed ‘misconduct’ within the meаning of the statute.”
In our statement of the facts in this appeal, we have ignored much debate between the parties as to othеr actions of claimant which are claimed to have contributed to his discharge. For purposes of this decision it is sufficient for us to note that a refusal of an employee to carry out a reasonable order of his foreman, coupled with a threat to punch him in the nose when the foreman offered to do the work *542 •himself, is misconduct within the meaning of the statute. *
Such a response is both a wilful disregard of the employer’s interests and a dеliberate violation of standards of behavior which an employer has a right to expect of his employee.
Boynton Cab Company
v.
Neubeck, supra;
see, also,
Bell
v.
Employment Security Commission,
See, also, 34 Halsbury’s Laws of England (2d ed), p 525.
The circuit judge was in error in holding that such conduct was merely “unsatisfactory conduct” or “failure of good pеrformance.”
. Claimant-appellee, however, asserts no general right to refuse to obey orders or to threaten physicаl violence to supervisory personnel. His contention is that this record does not show wilful disregard of the employer’s rights because hе contends his conduct was motivated by personal fear of the results of carrying out the orders issued.
Claimant’s testimony about the episode which is relied on in this regard is:
“Q. Did Veerett Davis tell you to put the dross in the furnace?
“A. Tes, he did.
*543 “Q. What happened at that time ?
“A. I closed the door and I asked him to go on back to his job. I knew how to operate the job because this job is a 1-man job. Two mans can cause maybe an explosion, but 1 man can handle the job so he went on back and worked the balance of the day.”
Subsequently, on cross-examination, however, claimant also testified:
“Q. Did you feel you were more experienced on the furnace than your foreman?
“A. Did I feel I were more experienced on the furnace than my foreman?
“Q. Yes.
“A. No, but I like to live. I didn’t wаnt my foreman to mess around. He just had an accident there.
“Q. What did you say, your foreman had an accident?
“A. I was there. * * *
“Q. Do you know what exploded ?
“A. I sure do, a kettle.
“Q. Do you know what caused that explosion?
“A. I sure do.
“Q. What?
“A. Turned air on the kettle with too much heat. She exploded.
“Q. That had nothing to do with loading it with dross?
“A. No.
“Q. What gives you the impression overloading this furnace would cause an explosion?
“A. I didn’t say that would cause an explosion.
“Q. You just testified that is why you didn’t want to throw the dross in.
“A. I said I didn’t want anyone to be messing with it.”
There are no findings of fact before us to support a conclusion that the foremаn’s order was unreasonable, or that claimant’s actions were motivated by personal fear. Nor do we feel that claimant’s оwn *544 testimony would support such findings. It exhibits a distrust for the foreman and probable belief that he knew his job better than the foreman did. But claimant himself rejects the implication that shoveling lead dust into the furnace would cause an explosion.
It might also be noted that a threat to рunch the foreman in the nose is not the customary reaction of a particularly fearful man.
We do not regard cases cited by аppellant as properly applicable to the facts found by the referee and appeal board and supported in this record.
Reversed and remanded for entry of an order based on the findings and opinion of the appeal board. No costs.
Notes
The misconduct disqualificatiоn section of tlie Michigan employment security act, § 29 (CLS 1956, § 421.29 [Stat Ann 1960 Rev § 17.531]), provides:
“(1) An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: “(a) For the duration of his unemplоyment in all eases where the individual has: (1) * * * or (2) has been discharged for misconduct connected' with Ms work or for intoxication while at work.”