Appeal of Miller

453 A.2d 1269, 122 N.H. 993, 1982 N.H. LEXIS 508
CourtSupreme Court of New Hampshire
DecidedDecember 8, 1982
DocketNo. 82-086
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 453 A.2d 1269 (Appeal of Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Appeal of Miller, 453 A.2d 1269, 122 N.H. 993, 1982 N.H. LEXIS 508 (N.H. 1982).

Opinion

[994]*994Memorandum Opinion

Bryon Miller seeks reversal of a denial of unemployment compensation benefits by the department of employment security’s appellate division because of work-connected misconduct within the meaning of RSA 282-A:32, 1(b) (Supp. 1981) (formerly RSA 282:4 A(2)). Miller began working for Prevue Products in 1979 and on at least three occasions received reprimands and suspensions for various reasons relating to safety-procedure infractions. The fourth incident leading to his discharge occurred when he allegedly jumped off a loading dock despite orders not to do so.

An unemployment compensation system is predicated upon benefits being paid to those who become unemployed through no fault of their own. No compensation is to be paid to one who is terminated because of “misconduct connected with his work.” RSA 282-A:32, 1(b) (Supp. 1981). Isolated or inadvertent instances of unsatisfactory conduct are not sufficient for a finding of “misconduct,” but recurring careless or negligent acts are enough to constitute “misconduct.” See Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941). Safety in the workplace is not only a legal requirement but a sound social policy for employer and employee alike. See Cloutier v. A. & P. Tea Co., Inc., 121 N.H. 915, 923, 436 A.2d 1140, 1144-45 (1981).

Review of the evidence does not reveal that the appellate division’s conclusion was “clearly erroneous,” and therefore we uphold its decision. RSA 282-A:67, IV(d) (Supp. 1981). But see Smith v. Adams, 118 N.H. 48, 51, 382 A.2d 362, 365 (1978).

Affirmed.

King, C.J., did not sit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In re Lakeview Neurorehabilitation Center, Inc.
834 A.2d 374 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 2003)
Appeal of New Hampshire Sweepstakes Commission
547 A.2d 241 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1988)
Appeal of Sturm, Ruger & Co.
474 A.2d 983 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1984)
Appeal of Beebe Rubber Co.
474 A.2d 984 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1984)
Appeal of Boudreault
461 A.2d 121 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
453 A.2d 1269, 122 N.H. 993, 1982 N.H. LEXIS 508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/appeal-of-miller-nh-1982.