
    Argued June 25;
    resubmitted in banc without oral argument July 10,
    reversed and remanded July 16, 1979
    DANIEL T. PALMER, Petitioner, v. EMPLOYMENT DIVISION et al, Respondents.
    
    (No. 79-AB-139, CA 13476)
    596 P2d 1330
    Larry T. Coady, Albany, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Coady & Moore, Albany.
    James C. Rhodes, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent Employment Division. With him on the brief were James A. Redden, Attorney General, and Walter L. Barrie, Solicitor General, Salem.
    Merle A. Long, City Attorney, Albany, waived appearance for respondent City of Albany.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

The issue here is whether petitioner was "* * * discharged for misconduct connected with his work * * V’ ORS 657.176(2)(a).

Reversed and remanded for reconsideration in light of Oliver v. Employment Division, 40 Or App 487, 595 P2d 1252 (1979).

JOSEPH, J.,

dissenting.

I do not believe that any agency policy making is a prerequisite for the Employment Appeals Board to-decide that it is "misconduct connected with his work” for a municipal employee to refuse to conform to a specific condition of employment that he live in the city. No value judgment is involved. See McPherson v. Employment Division, 285 Or 541, 550, 591 P2d 1381 (1979).

Buttler, J. and Gillette, J., join in this' dissent. 
      
      
        See Giese v. Employment Div., 27 Or App 929, 557 P2d 1354 (1976), rev den (1977).
     