We refrain from assessing credibility because credibility is within the province of the fact finder. See Nisson v. Maine Employment Sec. Comm'n, 455 A.2d 945, 949 (Me. 1983). [ΒΆ 14] The unemployment benefits statute states that an employee is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits if he was discharged for misconduct.
In the present case McInnis's third accident by itself was an extremely serious violation of R.T.P.'s interests. The circumstances of that accident, as found by the Commission, clearly demonstrate the degree of negligence or carelessness by McInnis necessary to come within the statutory definition of misconduct. Nothing in the cases cited to us by McInnis, namely, Nisson v. Maine Employment Security Commission, 455 A.2d 945 (Me. 1983), and Sheink v. Maine Department of Manpower Affairs, 423 A.2d 519 (Me. 1980), can be interpreted to require any showing of a more serious degree of carelessness or negligence than that displayed by McInnis. The entry is:
Plaintiff presents two arguments for reversing the Commission's conclusion. First, plaintiff argues that his conduct does not constitute an intentional disregard of BIW's interests because BIW did not give him proper warning of its displeasure. Although it is true that misconduct may be found in persistent conduct inimical to the employer's interest and in spite of repeated warnings, see e.g., Tompkins v. Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission, 487 A.2d 267, 268, 270 (Me. 1985); Nisson v. Maine Employment Security Commission, 455 A.2d 945, 950 (Me. 1983); Sheink, 423 A.2d at 522, persistent conduct and warnings are not required to make a proper finding of misconduct. Plaintiff's threat to shoot a co-worker on the employer's premises is the type of conduct that constitutes an intentional disregard of the employer's reasonable interests, without regard to the number of threats or presence of employer warnings. Second, plaintiff contends that "[t]here was no showing of any impact upon the employer's interests . . . .