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

CAROLYN S MCKEOWN, Employee

BANK ONE WISCONSIN, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 02004575JV


On July 3, 2002, the Department of Workforce Development issued an initial determination which held that the employee's discharge was not for misconduct connected with her employment. The employer filed a timely request for hearing on the adverse determination, and hearing was held on August 6, 2002 in Janesville, Wisconsin before a department administrative law judge. On August 8, 2002, the administrative law judge issued an appeal tribunal decision reversing the initial determination. The employee filed a timely petition for commission review of the adverse decision, and the matter is now ready for disposition.

Based upon the applicable law and the records and other evidence in the case, the commission issues the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The employee worked more than 14 years for the employer, in her last two years as a teller/customer service associate. The employer discharged her on June 11, 2002 (week 24) for a second mistake in handling a transaction as a teller. The commission does not believe the employee's failures constitute misconduct for unemployment insurance purposes, and so reverses the appeal tribunal decision.

In November of 2001, the employee made a significant error while redeeming some savings bonds for a customer. The individual had three bonds to redeem. The employee did not verify the denomination of the bonds, but rather assumed that all three were $1000 bonds, as that was the denomination of the bond on the top of the stack. Because of her failure to verify the denominations, she gave the customer $1700 more than the customer should have received. As a result of this failure, the employer gave the employee a disciplinary letter in lieu of discharge. The letter indicated that the employee would have been discharged for the error had the employer been unable to retrieve the funds wrongly given to the customer in question. The letter also stated that any other significant loss to the bank resulting from the employee's not following procedures, could result in the employee's termination.

The employee's supervisor spoke with the employee in January of 2002 about the employee's performance. The supervisor thought that the employee was not where "she should be" with regard to certain sales and the handling of difficult situations. The employee would seek guidance for unfamiliar transactions from her supervisor or from a co-worker. The employee's supervisor told the employee that she should be trying to find the answers in the employer's procedures manual (rather than asking a co-worker). In April the employee's review stated that the employee was a perfect teller, that she always balanced and that she was doing much better.

On or about May 23, the employee was involved in another transaction, which ultimately caused her discharge. A customer came to the employee to make a loan payment. He had a check for $400, to be used to make a payment of $359.60. He gave the check to the employee, and she returned cash to him in the amount of $40.40. When the employee first entered the transaction into her computer, she made an error in the entry. She later made a second entry, without voiding the first entry. As a result, her computer showed two transactions, each of them leading to a $40.40 cash return. At the end of the day, the employee tried to balance her cash against her computer records. Her cash drawer was over by $40.40, compared to the amount the computer expected her to have on hand. Rather than look at the computer detail to see what error might have occurred, the employee directed her attention to her paper records. When she saw that $40.40 was the amount that was to have been returned to the loan customer, she erroneously assumed that she was over in her cash count because she had not given that customer his change. She therefore took $40.40 from her cash drawer, and entered the new lower amount of cash on hand to balance with the computer records. She put the $40.40 in an envelope, intending to return it to the customer, and then put the envelope on a "will call" tray used by a number of tellers. The employee did not bring this matter to the attention of any supervisory personnel. The envelope and the cash it contained were never called for by the customer, and were eventually lost or stolen. When the employer became aware of the transaction several days later, it discharged the employee for "forcing" her numbers to balance on May 23 (and for the minor infraction of occasionally failing to balance her drawer at the end of each work day).

Misconduct for unemployment insurance purposes is the intentional and substantial disregard by an employee of standards an employer reasonably may expect of its employees. The commission does not believe the employee's failures meets this standard. Essentially, the employer discharged the employee for two failures, the significant failure in November of 2001 and the failure at the end of May in 2002. The employer argued that the employee's May 2002 failure was an instance of "forced" balancing, that is, where a teller intentionally uses numbers the teller knows to be incorrect, to balance the teller's drawer. The record does not indicate the employee did so, however. Rather, the employee believed she knew where the overage came from, as the amount, $40.40, was exactly the amount of change she was to have given the customer who made the $359.60 payment earlier in the day. The employer argued that the employee would have found her error had she opened a second screen on her computer (which would have shown that both entries went through). The employee's response, that she thought she had caught her error and that there thus was no need to search further for its source, was reasonable.

The employer also raised the issue of the missing $40.40 but, again, the record does not establish that this was any kind of failure on the employee's part. The employee's supervisor did not assert that the employee's placing the monies in question in an envelope on the vault cart was improper. There is no evidence to indicate that it was the employee who stole the $40.40. There appears to be no issue, finally, as to the employee's belief of the propriety of her placing the monies on the cart. The employee put the customer's name on the envelope and left a message for the customer to the effect that his monies were at the bank. The customer could have come in at any time, including a time the employee was not there, and co-workers or a supervisor would have retrieved the envelope for the customer (and thus become aware of the situation). There is no basis, therefore, to conclude that the employee was attempting to hide her handling of the matter.

The commission therefore finds that, in week 24 of 2002, the employee was discharged but not for misconduct connected with her work for the employer, within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(5).

DECISION

The appeal tribunal decision is reversed. Accordingly, the employee is eligible for unemployment insurance beginning in week 24 of 2002, if she is otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed February 14, 2003
mckeoca . urr : 105 : 2   MC 660.01

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

NOTE: The commission did not confer with the administrative law judge before determining to reverse the appeal tribunal decision in this matter. The commission's reversal is not based upon a differing credibility assessment from that made by the administrative law judge. Rather, as a matter of law the commission does not believe the employee's failures constitute the gross negligence which is misconduct for unemployment insurance purposes.

cc: 
Bank One Wisconsin, Janesville, WI 53545
James B. Schmidt, Continental Consultants


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


uploaded 2003/03/03