STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION
P O BOX 8126, MADISON, WI 53708-8126 (608/266-9850)


GREGORY T SHAW, Employee

MILWAUKEE INSULATION CO INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 00608502MW


An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Division of Unemployment Insurance of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and conclusion in that decision as its own.

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee is eligible for benefits, if otherwise qualified. There is no overpayment of unemployment insurance benefits as a result of this decision.

Dated and mailed March 2, 2001
shawgr.usd : 164 : 1   VL 1007.01

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

In the petition for commission review the employer reiterates its argument that the employee was presented with a warning letter and was told that he would need to sign it if he wanted to continue working for the employer. The employer contends that, contrary to his testimony at the hearing, the employee was not advised to return to work thereafter. However, even if the commission were to accept the employer's version of the facts, it would nonetheless agree with the appeal tribunal's legal conclusion that the employee was discharged by the employer, and not for misconduct connected with his employment. While the employer alleges that the employee quit by refusing to sign a warning letter, under the scenario presented by the employer the commission believes that such refusal would have been reasonable. The employer stated that the employee objected to the warning and was advised by his union representative not to sign it. Given these factors, and considering that the employer never advised the employee that his signature on the warning constituted only an acknowledgement of receipt, the employee would have been justified in refusing to sign the document, had it been presented to him. Consequently, even under the employer's version of the facts, the commission believes that the employee did not voluntarily quit and that his discharge was not shown to be for misconduct connected with his employment. Accordingly, the appeal tribunal decision is affirmed.


[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]


uploaded 2001/03/07