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

ANDRE REID, Employee

CORNWELL PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES LTD, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 02602479MW


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, except that it makes the following modifications:

In the second sentence of the fourth paragraph under the administrative law judge's FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW delete "December 29" and insert therefor "December 28."

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge, as modified, is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee is eligible for benefits, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed August 28, 2002
reidand . umd : 132 : 1 PC 714.04  PC 714.06  PC 714.11 

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

/s/ Laurie R. McCallum, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The employer has petitioned for commission review of the adverse appeal tribunal decision that found the employee was discharged from his employment but not for misconduct connected with his work. The commission has reviewed the record in this matter and agrees with the administrative law judge's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, as modified. The ALJ credited the employee's testimony that he returned the employer's telephone call on December 28. The employer's documentation may indicate otherwise, but the ALJ was entitled to credit the employee's testimony over the employer's documentation. Although the employee could not identify the individual with whom he spoke on December 28, the employer's documentation indicates that a number of individuals engage in telephone contact with workers. The employee's inability to identify the individual with whom he spoke does not place his credibility into question. For these reasons, and for the reasons set forth in the appeal tribunal decision, the commission affirms that decision.


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


uploaded 2002/09/06