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

LIONEL M SAPINO, Employee

ROGER RODEWALD BUICK GMC TRUCK INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 03402375SH


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 makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The employee worked as a mechanic for the employer, an automobile dealership, for over three years. His last day of work was May 22, 2003 (week 21).

The employee was issued a final warning concerning poor workmanship and failing to replace parts for which he was paid on March of 2003. He was advised at that time he was subject to discharge in the event he disobeyed that warning. On May 22, 2003, a car he had worked on previously was returned to the dealership on a tow truck. The employee began troubleshooting the vehicle. The president of the dealership angrily advised the employee to expedite repairs to appease the customer. The employee followed the president of the dealership into the office and demanded an apology for the language used towards him. He was not given an apology. He then advised the service manager that he would refuse to work further without an apology. He left the premises at that time. The employer removed the employee from the schedule and the employee was informed of that fact when he reported to the employer's facility the following day. The needed repairs to the vehicle in question were due to the employee's negligence in performing the original repair.

The initial issue to be decided is whether the employee quit or was discharged. If the employee quit, a secondary issue is whether the employee's quitting was for any reason that would permit the immediate payment of unemployment benefits. If the employee was discharged, a secondary issue is whether the employee's discharge was for misconduct connected with that employment.

The commission finds that the employee quit his employment when he left the workplace prior to the end of his shift and announced that he would not return without an apology. The employee did not establish that he quit for any reason that would permit immediate benefit payment. The employer was justifiably upset about the employee's failures in performance. The employer certainly could have expressed its disappointment in the employee's conduct without using coarse language. However, the employer's language did not justify the employee's decision to terminate his employment.

The commission therefore finds that in week 21 of 2003, the employee voluntarily terminated his employment within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(a), and not for any reason that permits immediate benefit payment.

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is modified to conform to the foregoing findings and, as modified, is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee is ineligible for benefits beginning in week 21 of 2003, and until four weeks have elapsed since the end of the week of quitting and he has earned wages in covered employment performed after the week of quitting equal to at least four times the weekly benefit rate that would have been paid had the quitting not occurred. He is required to repay the sum of $3,470 to the Unemployment Reserve Fund.

Dated and mailed November 26, 2003
sapinli . urr : 132 : 1  VL 1007.01  VL 1005.01 

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James T. Flynn, Commissioner

Robert Glaser, Commissioner



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


uploaded 2003/12/03