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

WILLIE D HYLER, Employee

REGAL-BELOIT CORP, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 97002837JV


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 employe is eligible for benefits beginning in week 19 of 1997, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed August 27, 1997
hylerwi . usd : 178 : 7  MC 605.091

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Chairman

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

In its petition for commission review, the employer argues that the employe's absences due to a parole violation constituted a deliberate and substantial disregard for the employer's interests. It requests the commission reverse and find the employe was discharged for misconduct.

The commission has long held that absences due to incarceration are not for a valid reason if the incarceration is due to the employe's fault. In this case, no evidence of fault was adduced in either of the two incidents. The standard for evaluating fault is whether the employe wilfully and intentionally started the chain of events which led to his being unavailable for work. The end result must be directly related to the beginning of the course of conduct. Schweikert v. Ganton Technologies, Inc, UC Hearing no. 91-606281RC (LIRC Mar. 24, 1992) .

In neither of his two incarcerations was the employe shown to be at fault. According to the employe's account, the parole officer found the first charges to be unfounded. In the second instance, the employe states he was not charged and he was the victim of another's aggression. There is no evidence in the record to the contrary. The employer's earlier warning that if he was jailed under circumstances similar to the first time he would be discharged does not alter the outcome. The employe could not have anticipated or avoided being the recipient of a drunk's hostility merely because he spoke to a friend. According to the only account in the record, the employe did not intentionally begin the chain of events that led to his incarceration. Therefore, the appeal tribunal decision must be affirmed.

cc: Regal-Beloit Corporation


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


uploaded 2002/06/13