GEORGE ROBY, Employee
MILWAUKEE GRAY IRON LLC, Employer
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.
The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee is ineligible for benefits beginning in week 48 of 2002, and until seven weeks have elapsed since the end of the week of discharge and the employee has earned wages in covered employment performed after the week of discharge equaling at least 14 times the employee's weekly benefit rate which would have been paid had the discharge not occurred.
Dated and mailed July 17, 2003
robygeo . usd : 115 : 1 MC 610.08
/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman
/s/ James T. Flynn, Commissioner
The administrative law judge found credible the version of events presented by the employer. The commission finds no reason to overturn this credibility determination, particularly since the record shows that no one but the employee was identified as being in the immediate vicinity of the air valve at the time it had to have been shut off, and the employee's explanation that he was in that area and made the motions he did in order to unplug a fan was not believable since unplugging the fan would not have required him to reach his arm over his head.
Intentional sabotage is a very serious matter, and a single incident may support a finding of misconduct, as the commission concludes it does here. See, Castillo v. Cudahy, Inc., UI Hearing No. 00603019MW (LIRC Oct. 26, 2000).
ROBERT GLASER, Commissioner, (dissenting):
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. Given that the employee's actions were isolated ones and had little actual impact on the employer's operation, I don't believe that they were sufficiently egregious to support a conclusion that he engaged in misconduct. It appears as though the employer was looking to make an example of one of its workers in order to emphasize how seriously it regarded the actions of sabotage it had recently experienced, and, as a result, overreacted to the employee's situation. In my opinion, this type of conduct on the part of a 31- year employee may have justified the imposition of discipline, but not a discharge.
/s/ Robert Glaser,
Commissioner
cc:
Attorney Barbara Zack Quindel
[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]
uploaded 2003/07/21