
    Argued October 30, 1973,
    remanded with instructions January 7,
    reconsideration denied February 13,
    petition for review denied March 19, 1974
    BAUER, Petitioner, v. MORGAN et al, Respondents.
    
    517 P2d 689
    
      Barbee B. Lyon, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner.
    
      Al J. Laue, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent Ross Morgan, Administrator, Employment Division. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Attorney General, and W. Michael Gillette, Solicitor General, Salem.
    Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Langtry and Foley, Judges.
   FOLEY, J.

From a denial of unemployment compensation benefits, claimant appeals. Claimant assigns as error two findings of fact by the Appeals Board and its conclusion of law that he was discharged for misconduct connected with his work.

Claimant worked at the Salem plant of the Overhead Door Company from September 1972 until January 30, 1973, when he was discharged. The Appeals Board made the following findings of fact:

“FINDINGS OF FACT: (1) The claimant worked for the above-named employer from September 1972 until January 30, 1973. (2) His work was that of a ‘spring winder.’ (3) He worked a regular shift; his pay scale was $3.31 an hour. (4) The claimant was assigned to a department where he was to wind springs, and he was under the supervision of a leadman, who operated that department. (5) A personality conflict developed between the claimant and this leadman, (6) The claimant was argumentative ;' making issue of matters of small consequence. (7) He debated each order or instruction given by tbe leadman. (8) Tbe controversy between the claimant and tbe leadman became so acute that it came to tbe attention of their superiors. (9) Tbe superiors attempted to resolve tbe matter by transferring tbe claimant to another department. (10) This was because claimant bad only a short amount of seniority and experience in tbe department, and the foreman with bis experience and ability was considered necessary for tbe operation of tbe department. (11) When the claimant argued with bis superiors indicating that be was resisting tbe transfer, he was released on January 30,1973.”

Claimant challenges findings six and seven, asserting that tbe leadman was “riding” him and that bis behavior toward tbe leadman was a reaction to what be considered unfair treatment. One of tbe employer’s witnesses who worked near claimant confirmed this to some extent and testified that tbe leadman bad been in a bad mood tbe two weeks previous to and including tbe day claimant was discharged.

Regardless of the challenged findings of fact, claimant was not discharged because be could not get along with tbe leadman. Tbe foreman attempted to resolve tbe problem by transferring claimant to another department. Tbe foreman testified that claimant refused to be transferred, and so was fired. Claimant said be did not refuse, and, in fact, said he would move to tbe new department, but that be wanted the foreman to explain in front of a witness bis reasons for transferring claimant rather than the leadman. This tbe foreman refused to do. The referee found that claimant “expressed a strong resentment toward being the person transferred * * The Appeals Board found that he resisted the transfer. Neither of these findings of fact amount to an unequivocal finding of refusal to be transferred, which was the reason given by the employer for the dismissal. The requirement that claimant transfer to another department was reasonable. If the claimant in fact refused the transfer, his discharge would be justified on the ground of misconduct. If he did not refuse the transfer, we conclude his reluctant attitude and actions would not amount to misconduct defined as “* * * deliberate violation[s] *= # * [or] disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee * * 48 Am Jur 541-42, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Etc. § 38, and authorities collected therein.

Pursuant to OPS 183.480 (7) we remand with instructions that a specific finding be made as to whether or not claimant refused the transfer and for the entry of an order in accordance therewith.

Remanded with instructions. 
      
       ORS 657.176 sets out as grounds for disqualification:
      “An individual whose unemployment is due to:
      “(1) Having been discharged for misconduct connected with his work ***■.. .....
      a* * * * *»
     
      
       On the last of several times the claimant testified he said: “* * “ * I didn’t say I would move; I didn’t say I wouldn’t, move * * Under some circumstances such an answer could be interpreted as a refusal of transfer.
     