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


RAYMOND F ROCKENBACH, Employe

ALLEN BRADLEY CO INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION DECISION
Hearing No. 96002674MW


An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Division of Unemployment Insurance of the Department of Workforce Development (Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations prior to July 1, 1996) 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 ineligible for benefits from week 11 through week 18 of 1996, and until the employe has earned wages in covered employment performed after the week of discharge equaling at least $3,836.00. The employe is required to repay $4,932.00 to the Unemployment Reserve Fund. The UCB-700, Monetary Computation issued May 8, 1996 is set aside as a result of this decision.

Dated and mailed :  November 12, 1996
rockera.usd : 135 : 1 MC 605.07  PC 729

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Chairman

/s/ Richard T. Kreul, Commissioner

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In his petition for commission review the employe contends that the employer's supervisor lied when she said that his March 7, 1996 notice was for less than 24 hours. The commission disagrees. The employe left a note at work on March 7, 1996 stating that he was taking March 8 and March 11 as days of vacation. The employe left work on March 7 without receiving either a verbal or written approval to take time off. This was in direct violation of a suspension notice given to the employe in February which stated "give 24 hour notice for vacation time which must be approved by supervisor prior to usage." Although the employe contends that employer's past practice condoned the used of vacation time without prior approval, the commission believes that the evidence establishes that in this case the employe could not take vacation without approval by a superior prior to the date(s) requested. The employe knew from the progressive disciplinary actions that his employment was in jeopardy due to his absenteeism and tardiness. Based on the evidence, the commission concludes that the employe deliberately and intentionally violated the employer's rule requiring that he obtain supervisor approval for vacation time off prior to taking such time. Under these circumstances, the employe's discharge was for misconduct connected with his employment within the meaning of section 108.04 (5), Stats.

The remainder of the employe's petition raises concerns about alleged bias by the hearing office and administrative law judge. After reviewing the record including the synopsis of the hearing tapes, the commission did not discern any objections raised by the employe regarding the issuances of subpoenas or the admission of various exhibits. Therefore, after through review of the record, the commission finds no reason to believe that either the hearing office or administrative law judge was biased against the employe. While it is understandable that the employe is unhappy with the results of the hearing, the rejection of the employe's arguments at the hearing based on evidence and the law should not be confused with bias. In this case, the commission has reviewed the record and finds no reason to believe that the administrative law judge decided the case on any basis other than the evidence which was credible. The commission agrees with and declines to overturn the appeal tribunal decision based on the concerns raised by the employe in his petition.

cc :  ALLEN BRADLEY CO


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