This is an S.O.S. don't want to second guess this is the bottom line.
The calmants last period of employment with this employer began October 26, 2006 ( Which is wrong because his Lawyer was wrong. Whatever. ) She worked full-time ( Even though I said part-time, but between the two jobs it was full-time) Her duties involved cleaning and feeding the birds and waiting on customers. Her last day for work was May 19, 2007. She was discharged for advising the employers president Larry Zaineb that she was going to accept a gift of a bird from its owners, Laura and Mark edit.
The involved employer is a pet store which boards, ells and groooms exotic birds and also sells related accessories. Bird owners occasionally return their birds and the emoloyer resells them. There is then the opportunity to sell food and other related products.
Approximately two years before the claimant's last day of work Mark edit purchased "Mango," a severe macaw, as a gift for his wife, Laura. He paid somewhere between $400 - $800 for the bird. Mango had a biting and screaming problem. In 2006 the edit' asked Larry if he'd take the bird back. He declined to do so.
The claimant groomed Mango when he was brought into the pet store and also counseled the edit' on how to correct Mango's behavior. She got along well with Mango and the edit noticed this.
In 2007 Laura edit suggested to the claimant that she become Mango's owner. She had no intention of returning Mango to Larry.
Approximately a week before the claimants last day for work, Larry was notified the edit' intended to give Mango to the claimant. He told the claimant that if she accepted Mango she would lose her job. On May 19, 2007 the claimant advised Larry she would accept Mango. He again told her that if she accepted the bird she would be losing her job. The claimant accepted Mango as gift and received the bird in October 2007 when her housing accomodations allowed her to take Mango.
Issue
Whether the claimant is disqualified as a result of a discharge or suspension for misconduct pursuant to Section 29 (1)(b) of the Michigan Employment Security Act. ( Was suspended or discharged for misconduct connected with the individual's work or for intoxication while at work. )
Reasoning and Conclusions of Law:
"The Administrative Law Judge finds that the employer has not sustained its burden of proving that the claimant was discharged for misconduct. The employer had a business interest in Mango but only if there was a possibility that the edit' would return Mango to him. It is clear from the testimony of theedit that they had no intention of giving Mango to (Larry). Accordingly, the employer has not established the claimants behavior was an intentional disregard of its interests or of the standards of behavior it had a right to expect of her as an employee." Pwnd.
Thats right. Larry had to prove I had done some misconduct to be disqualified. The misconduct was essentially that I'd came inbetween him and Mango. However the lovely people that his old family were showed up and pwnd his face in. I was told he strolled out quite chipper and happy after the whole thing. I guess he thought the same thing I did.
And I'm not really the prayer type of person. But it's really starting to make me heavily curious that the good things happen when I ask for a certain person to help me in times I need it. It isn't God. It isn't my Grandma. I don't even know why I ask them. But they seem to look out for me I think. Three things I ever asked them to help me with and I got what I wanted/needed. Weird.
Working two jobs sucks. But once again I gotta do what I gotta do to survive. OfficeMax is sooo much better then the vet place already. Everyone treats me like a human being and not some uber weirdo that they're waiting to quit. Sigh. Bitches. Whatcha gonna do?