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

WOODROW W KNIPFER, Employee

WEBCRAFTERS INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 03004515MD


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.

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee is ineligible for benefits beginning in week 40 of 2002 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 equaling at least four times his weekly benefit rate which would have been paid had the quitting not occurred.

Dated and mailed January 8, 2004
knipfwo . usd : 115 : 2  VL 1005.01  VL 1080.20

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James T. Flynn, Commissioner

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The employee worked more than eight years as a print press operator for the employer, a printing business.

It is undisputed that the employee, after the end of his shift on 9/17/02, took a company drill out to his truck in the parking lot; that, while in the parking lot, he was questioned and arrested by police in regard to a domestic abuse complaint; that one of the employer's workers discovered the drill in the employee's truck and returned it to the work site; that the employer initiated an investigation of the incident as a possible theft, and placed the employee on indefinite suspension on 9/18/02 pending the completion of this investigation; that this investigation took at least two weeks; and that the employee became frustrated with the length of the investigation and quit his employment as a result.

It should first be noted that the employee was eligible for benefits during the period of the investigation. Brown v. Jewel Food Store, UI Hearing No. 98605057MW (LIRC Oct. 20, 1998); Stahl v. Doskocil Food Service, UI Hearing No. 01005452JF (LIRC March 29, 2002). It should also be noted that suspensions for purposes of investigation are almost by definition of indefinite duration given that it is generally not possible to predict with any degree of certainty when a particular investigation is begun how long it will take to complete.

The remaining question then is whether the employee was eligible for benefits after he quit. The only exception to the quit disqualification which would arguably apply here is that which provides the employee the opportunity to show good cause attributable to the employer. This would involve examining whether the employer was reasonably justified in initiating the investigation (See, DuBose v. St. Anne's Home, UI Hearing No. 02602980MW (LIRC Dec. 4, 2002), and whether the investigation was unreasonably lengthy.

The fact that a new, expensive drill was found in the employee's personal vehicle gave the employer reasonable justification to suspect that a theft may be involved and to initiate an investigation as a result. In addition, the record does not support a conclusion that an investigation of two weeks' duration (1)  was unreasonably lengthy, i.e., the employer needed to question members of at least two police agencies, and workers and managers on different shifts; the employer investigated not only the incident of 9/17, but also, based on the defense offered by the employee, whether other employees had removed company tools from the work site without permission to use for personal projects; and the investigator exercised reasonable diligence, even calling the employee frequently to report on her progress and her difficulties getting prompt and responsive answers from police and employees. The commission concludes as a result that the employee failed to show good cause attributable to the employer for his quitting.


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


Footnotes:

(1)( Back ) The only evidence in the record as to the length of the investigation is the employee's testimony that it took "2-3 weeks." As a result, the employee proved only that the investigation lasted at least 2 weeks. 

 


uploaded 2004/01/12