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

JEAN M AEDER GORT, Employee

CITY OF MANITOWOC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 05401450MN


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 one and one-half years as a reference librarian for the employer, a government unit. Her last day of work was October 14, 2004, (week 24) when she was discharged. The employer discharged the employee for insubordination, attempting to undermine the authority and effectiveness of the library director, causing the reputation and esteem in which the Manitowoc Public Library was held in the community to diminish, and making verbal and written threats to publicly damage the reputation and livelihood of the library director.

The issue to be decided is whether the employee's actions, which led to her discharge, constitute misconduct connected with her work for the employer.

The employer's personnel policy sets forth a complaint procedure which provides:

VIII. STAFF COMPLAINT PROCEDURE

All Staff complaints must be addressed through the library channels established below.

A. The first step is that the employee should contact either in person or in writing his/her immediate supervisor for disposition;

B. If the complaint is not resolved, then the employee should contact either in person or in writing the next level of supervision for disposition. If the complaint is not resolved, the employee should continue this procedure until eventually his/her concern is submitted in writing to the library director for disposition.

C. If the complaint is not resolved, the employee should submit the concern in writing to the president of the library board for final decision by the library board. An employee's failure to follow this staff complaint procedure will nullify the employee's complaint. In the event of a staff complaint, the employee shall continue to perform the assigned task, or otherwise comply with the expected behavior, until the complaint is resolved.

Exhibit 1.

In a September 28, 2004, management team meeting a number of matters were addressed including the employer's dress code. The management team notes reflect that at the June 29, 2004, management team meeting it was decided that, "Capri pants are OK but they must be at least mid-calf length. Someone had a pair that are at the knee and these are considered shorts." Exhibit 4. Kathy Schmidt, the supervisor of information and adult services (I & AS) and the employee's supervisor, e-mailed the management team notes, including the reference to Capri pants, to workers in her department.

On September 29, 2004, the employee "replied to all" of the original recipients of her supervisor's e-mail stating:

Regarding the dress code mentioned at the two management team meetings, did Alan happen to mention his authoritative source on his definition of "shorts"? If Capri pants are longer than the knee, they don't fit any of the definitions that I have been able to find.

The employee then set out a number of dictionary definitions for Capri pants. Exhibit 5.

The director of library, Alan Engelbert, met with the employee and Ms. Schmidt regarding what the employee was attempting to accomplish with her e-mail. The director questioned whether the employee was trying to undermine the director's authority or simply used poor judgment. The employee indicated that, as a reference librarian, she had the right to demand an authoritative source and that director had mischaracterized Capri pants. The director indicated that he had the responsibility to enforce and interpret library board policy. The director informed the employee that if she disagreed with the policy she should take it up with her supervisor, then up through the chain of command, and if she felt the labor agreement had been violated, she could use the grievance procedure. The director told the employee that she could not e-mail people other than her supervisor. She was told that she was "on thin ice," for having done so.

On October 1, 2004, the director received a memorandum of understanding from the employee. In that memorandum the employee indicated that she only copied those that received her supervisor's original e-mail. The employee indicated, "It was my understanding that by 'cc' -ing the others in the e-mail, I was not going behind my supervisor's back, but rather asking a question in the open and for the benefit of my fellow staff members - just the way I would have questioned those comments if they had been made at an I & AS staff meeting." Exhibit 6. In the memo she acknowledged that she was told that she was "on thin ice." The employee further stated, "I believe that I was not out of line with my question in my e-mail, nor was I out of line by copying the recipients of the original e-mail. On the contrary, I feel it was "above board." The employee concluded her memo indicating that she wanted the union steward, David Ellison, to be present if there were further discussions with her on this matter. She copied the union steward on the memo. Exhibit 6.

On October 4, 2004, the director issued a memo to the employee regarding her actions on September 29, 2004. In that memo he indicated that it was the right of the director of the library to make a decision without providing what the employee considered to be an "authoritative source." He indicated that he was the authoritative source that the employee seemed to be looking for in the course of the administration of the library. He referenced the October 1, 2004, meeting and stated that he had been attempting to ascertain whether the employee was trying to interfere with decisions made and the authority of the director by sending the e-mail to all of the I & AS staff or simply lacked good judgment. The director indicated that he decided that the employee was driven by poor judgment, and therefore no disciplinary action would be undertaken. The memo concluded:

Please be advised that if you question any action taken by your superiors, you may discuss it with your immediate supervisor. Your supervisor will determine what course to pursue from that point forward. If you believe the action taken by your superiors is in violation of the Labor Agreement, you have recourse to the grievance procedure, which also requires that you discuss the matter with your immediate supervisor. You are not free to send out e-mails or other forms of communication to all or part of the staff if you question decisions made by your supervisors. Doing so in the future will result in discipline up to and including termination.

This matter is concluded.

Exhibit 7.

On October 5, 2004, the employee sent an e-mail to her supervisor. The employee noted that she had read the director's e-mail and was not happy about it. She commented that "trying to get the powers-that-be to see reason sometimes can be extremely difficult." The employee further stated:

To put your mind at rest, I DO want to keep my job, so rest assured that as of 5PM yesterday, I will follow Alan's instruction to the letter of not communicating with anyone but you on the staff if I question my superiors' decisions. This gag order is extremely infuriating and since I have never been a "yes man," instead of me just questioning you about I & AS matters, you will now have to put up with me questioning everything else too. My apologies in advance for future ear-bending. :)

I had written one of my library staff professors to get his opinion on the matter, the night after Alan called me into his office. I am attaching his response.

Well, Alan wrote in his memo that this matter is concluded. I will not discuss with you or Hallie the specific events of 9/28/04 again.

Again, just to let you know that I do realize it, I am not to in any forms of communication, disagree with any of my "'superiors'" decisions, except to you alone on the staff. As I said, infuriating. Also, poor Kathy.

Exhibit 8.

The employee also included a number of postscripts in which she commented that it was amazing that the director did not know how to take a joke and that "if you hear of any non-supervisory library related jobs in the area where I don't have to be a "yes man," would you please let me know?"

The professor's e-mail referenced above was a response from the professor indicating that in his experience it was acceptable to copy all original recipients of a message when seeking clarification and explanation of a policy since the answer would affect them as well. He commented that he didn't know what the fuss was about since a clear policy would increase the likelihood that staff would behave in a manner consistent with the director's wishes. Exhibit 10.

On October 6 the employee asked Deb Geiger, the personnel and safety coordinator for the employer, for copies of the city and library's harassment policies and information regarding a chain of command. Ms. Geiger provided the employee the harassment policy but did not have a chain of command document.

On the morning of October 8, 2004, Rachel Muchin-Young, head of public relations, received a telephone at her home call from the employee. The employee questioned whether the head of public relations had taken her job for the benefits. Ms. Muchin-Young indicated that she had. The employee replied, "Okay, and keep it under your hat, but I'm planning on filing a grievance. Good-bye." Ms. Muchin-Young called the employee back and questioned why the employee wanted to know what her motivation was for taking the job. Ms. Muchin-Young also asked what the employee's motivation was for filing a grievance. The employee indicated she wanted the director to sign a long memo that she was writing, that she was going to show to Deb in personnel, and assumed that they would work on changing the things that she could. The employee stated that at the very least, "I want Alan and Hallie to be walking on eggshells." Ms. Muchin-Young set forth her discussion with the employee in a memo. Exhibit 11.

On October 8, 2004, the employee sent an e-mail from her yahoo account to Linda Bendix, the former head of I & AS for the employer, and at that time the director of the Lake Geneva Public Library. The employee carbon copied the comeuppanceparty. The employee indicated the subject was "grievance planned against AE at MPL". The employee wrote:

I work at the reference desk at MPL. I'm planning on filing a union grievance against Alan and would like to talk to any one who can add to the list of complaints against him. Would you be willing to talk to me?

I'm not on the management team and would like to get in as many complaints that may pertain to the genera (sic) position they are stuck in, as well as specifics pertaining to your relationship with him.

Have just finished writing up a draft version of my grievance. The grievance itself is minimal, but it will stick. The request for Settlement is "Alan Engelbert, the Library Director, should acknowledge as true, sign, and hand-deliver the attached memorandum to both the recipient and to all the library employees (both union and non-union)."

He'll be damned if he does and damned if he doesn't since it will bring up as many of the complaints I've heard against him. Once the grievance process is initiated, and therefore public, I'll go to Deb Geiger and let her work on the legal specs. If nothing else I will embarrass him out of town.

I especially hate the way he treats my supervisor, who has no recourse. I'm sorry to put her through the stress I'm going to, but am sure she will thank me later.

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Exhibit 16.

On October 9, 2004, at approximately 6:30 p.m., the employee called her supervisor, Ms. Schmidt, at Ms. Schmidt's home. Ms. Schmidt documented the conversation in an October 11, 2004, memo as follows:

She asked me if I thought she was good at coming up with unique solutions to problems. I said yes.

She said she had a way to solve all our problems. She was going to get Alan to either resign or have to be very careful from now on around Management Team members. I told her she was imagining a fantasy. I told her that this would not happen and she would get herself fired.

She said she was going to file a grievance. Then she said something about the possibility of more than one grievance. David had read it and said he thought she had a case. Neil has read it. She suggested that I ask for a copy of the grievance form so that I was familiar with it. She expected that I would simply be passing things on to Hallie and then on to Alan.

I should expect to receive a call soon. (Perhaps this was Deb Geiger.)

I asked her if she had gotten any sleep. I told her that the last time I had talked to her on Thursday she had not been making a lot of sense. She said she had slept well the night before. She agreed that on Thursday from lack of sleep she was not always tracking with what other people were saying. She said that she had drunk some wine so at the moment she might be a little drunk.

She was worried about me. She didn't want me to resign. She would protect me and everyone else on the staff.

It sounded like she was reading something she had written down. She highly values Rachel's opinion of her. She may think it is vindictiveness but it is righteous wrath.

She said she had a list of recommendations on who should be the next library director. I was third on the list. I said she could not decide who would be the library director. In an angry tone she said she could make a recommendation couldn't she?

She said that Lisa had told her about an article in Manager's Legal Bulletin where the employee had been fired and then there was a case made about how the employer treated the employee's boyfriend. She thought I should track down that article. She said she had not read it herself. She said if she is fired then Dale would be able to say whatever he wanted to AE and he would be protected.

She made a reference to her earlier e-mail about AE not being able to take a joke.

Exhibit 12.

On October 9, 2004, at 7:49 p.m., the employee sent an e-mail, from jaeder@mcls.lib.wi.us, to supervisors and department heads in the library (1)  and her supervisor, with a blind carbon copy to comeuppanceparty@yahoo.com, with a subject line stating "a humble request." In the e-mail the employee stated:

I am planning on taking serious action on a matter of extreme importance.

I highly value Rachel's opinion of me.

When everything settles, I humbly request that you PLEASE do your utmost to individually plead my case to Rachel that what I have done is righteous wrath -- not vindictiveness.

Exhibit 9.

After the director received the memos from Ms. Schmidt and Ms. Muchin-Young regarding their conversations with the employee, Exhibits 10 through 12, the director met with Ms. Schmidt, the union steward, David Ellison, and Deb Geiger. In the meeting he asked the union steward what was motivating the employee. Mr. Ellison indicated that the employee's objective was to get the director removed from his position. Mr. Ellison indicated that he had pleaded with the employee to drop the matter but he could not reason with her. Mr. Ellison also indicated that he wanted to distance himself as much as possible from the employee and described the employee as a "zombie." Mr. Ellison also stated that the employee was contacting former staff members and had also contacted current staff members. Mr. Ellison stated that the employee was gathering as much dirt as possible to go to the board and that if the board did not agree, the employee was going to go after them. The director wrote a note summarizing the meeting. Exhibit 13.

On October 11 the employee called Ms. Geiger and stated that her supervisor and the union steward were being badgered and harassed. A meeting was set up to be held on October 14 at 1:00 p.m. On October 11 the employee called Ms. Geiger and said she was not prepared and could not meet with Ms. Geiger. Ms. Geiger tried to reschedule the meeting but was unable to do so.

The director scheduled a meeting with the employee to begin at 3:00 p.m. on October 11. When the director returned from lunch on October 11 he received a voice mail from Linda Bendix, indicating that she received a disturbing e-mail from the employee. The director testified that Ms. Bendix indicated the employee was trying to find "dirt" on the director and was intending to file a grievance. Ms. Bendix indicated that the director was going to have to sign a memo the employee had authored in order to settle the grievance and her ambition was, at a minimum, to embarrass the director out of town.

At the October 11, 2004, meeting the director suspended the employee for insubordination and undermining his authority and effectiveness. The director felt that the employee's contacts inside and outside the library were a violation of the directive she was given in the October 4, 2004, memo.

Just prior to being suspended, the employee handed the director a document and insisted that the director deliver it to Tom Klein, the president of the library board of trustees. The director indicated the employee could do it herself. The employee then yelled, "Did you hear him? He told me, "no." At the end of the suspension meeting the employee pushed the document back towards the director and insisted that he deliver it. The memo referred to was directed to the library board and copied to the library management team and the union bulletin board. The memo stated:

Because I do not want you to be caught unaware, I am planning on bringing some important matters to your attention and would like to request meeting with you first, in order to give you a "heads up" so that you have a chance to discuss them with the library director.

By addressing this request to you via Alan Engelbert, I am following proper procedures.

Exhibit 15.

After suspending the employee's employment the director learned of another e-mail that the employee had sent on Monday, October 11, just prior to her meeting with the director. The e-mail was from jaeder@mcls.lib.wi.us, and had a subject line "Jean Requests to Meet with Board President, Tom Klein." The e-mail was sent to about 15 other staff members. In that e-mail the employee stated:

Please see the attached memo. For some this is a second copy. For others, union members, it is a copy of the one that will be placed on the Union Bulletin Board, located in the Staff Room, as per the latest Union contract.

PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT IT DOES GET PUT ON THAT ONE since it is the only one in the room. Currently, the Union Bulletin Board has Hearts and Hands stuff on it. That should go elsewhere, since it IS the Union Board. Perhaps out in the hallway?

I'll need anything that needs discussion with Tom Klein. (This request is to you as employees of the Manitowoc Public Library, NOT as Union Members.)

Please e-mail them to jeanaeder@yahoo.com. My home phone number is: [number omitted].

Wish me luck! It would be great to see overall conditions improve in the Library. No more intimidation, no retaliations, just good, hard, fun work.

Exhibit 17.

On October 14, Ms. Silver, a department head at the library, called Ms. Geiger about harassment complaints she believed the employee was filing. It was relayed that the complaint involved an incident in 2002. On October 14 the employee delivered an envelope to the employer at 11:55 a.m. that referenced harassment at the library including a request for an investigation. The envelope included what was marked as Exhibit 21.

After the director became aware of all of the documents, he discussed the employee's actions with the city personnel coordinator, the city attorney, and the library board president. A decision was made to discharge the employee. On October 14, 2004, the employer discharged the employee for the reasons previously stated. Exhibit 18. As it was decided to terminate the employee's employment, her previously imposed suspension was determined to be with pay. Exhibit 14.

On October 15 the employee left a message for Ms. Geiger indicating she thought the city attorney represented individuals, but now understood that he represented the city so she was taking another direction. Sometime after the envelope was delivered the employee indicated she no longer wanted to pursue a harassment investigation.

The employee filed a grievance on October 19, 2004, which was after she had been discharged. She also sent additional letters to the City Attorney requesting that he begin an investigation into the employer's actions. Exhibits 20 and 21.

In October of 2004, the employee spoke with David Ellison, a librarian and the union steward. The employee asked Mr. Ellison to write a grievance but what she brought him seemed to be name calling. Mr. Ellison asked her to focus on a contract violation. The employee told Mr. Ellison that the director told her she could not contact anyone by e-mail including her supervisor. The employee was talking to other staff members and asking for names of people who had been discharged. The employee told Mr. Ellison that she wanted to take things to the board so they would know what the director had been doing. Mr. Ellison asked the employee what would happen if the board disagreed with her, and the employee said that she would go after the board. Mr. Ellison believed that the employee's objective was to get the director fired.

In Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck & Ind. Comm., 237 Wis. 249, 296 N.W. 636 (1941), the leading case with respect to the meaning of the term "misconduct" as applied to unemployment insurance in the United States, the court said, in part, as follows:

" . . . the intended meaning of the term 'misconduct' . . . is limited to conduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to his employer. On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good-faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed 'misconduct' with in the meaning of the statute."

The commission finds that the employee's actions beginning on September 29, 2005, demonstrated an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interest and of standards of behavior the employer had a right to expect of the employee. The employee was directed to follow the employer's chain of command, a chain that many employers, public and private, have in place and expect employees to follow. It was not unreasonable of the employer to direct the employee to take her concerns to her supervisor rather than communicate with other staff members. The employee was permitted to consult with her union representative if she believed a provision of the collective bargaining agreement had not been followed. The employee did not demonstrate that the director violated, or that she had any basis for believing that he violated a provision in the collective bargaining agreement. The employee was not advancing any public interest. The commission finds no matter of public concern that was being stifled by the employer. The October 4 directive to the employee to take her complaints to her supervisor first mirrored the staff complaint policy, and that policy was applicable to all the workers. The employee was acting as a disgruntled employee, not a citizen. The employee's actions were not motivated by her concerns over freedom of information. The employee was engaging in a fishing expedition against the director motivated by pique resulting from the director's decision on Capri pants. The employee was not on a crusade to access information, but on a campaign to drive the director out of his position. A reasonable person would understand such conduct to constitute an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests.

The commission therefore finds that in week 42 of 2004 the employee was discharged from her employment and for misconduct connected with her work within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(5).

The commission further finds that the employee was paid benefits in the amount of $329.00 for week 16 of 2005, for which the employee was not eligible and to which the employee was not entitled, within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.03(1).

The final issue to be decided is whether recovery of overpaid benefits must be waived. Wis. Stat. § 108.22(8)(c), provides that the department shall waive the recovery of overpaid benefits if the overpayment was the result of departmental error, and the overpayment did not result from the fault of the employee. Under Wis. Stat. § 108.02(10e)(a) and (b), departmental error is defined as an error made by the department in computing or paying benefits which results from a mathematical mistake, miscalculation, misapplication or misinterpretation of the law or mistake of evidentiary fact, by commission or omission, or from misinformation provided to a claimant by the department, on which the claimant relied.

The overpayment in this case results from the commission's reversal of the appeal tribunal decision. Such reversal was not due to departmental error as defined in Wis. Stat. § 108.02(10e)(a) and (b).

The commission further finds that waiver of benefit recovery is not required under Wis. Stat. § 108.22(8)(c), because although the overpayment did not result from the fault of the employee as provided in Wis. Stat. § 108.04(13)(f), the overpayment was not the result of a departmental error. See Wis. Stat. § 108.22(8)(c)2.

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is reversed. Accordingly, the employee is ineligible for benefits beginning in week 42 of 2004, and until seven weeks elapse since the end of the week of discharge and the employee has earned wages in covered employment equaling at least 14 times the weekly benefit rate which would have been paid had the discharge not occurred. The employee is required to repay the sum of $329.00 to the Unemployment Reserve Fund. The initial benefit computation (UCB-700) issued on April 22, 2005, is set aside. If benefits become payable based on work performed in other covered employment a new computation will be issued as to those benefit rights.

For purposes of computing benefit entitlement: Base period wages from work for the employer prior to the discharge shall be excluded from any computation of maximum benefit amount for this or any later claim. If the employee was also paid base period wages from work by other covered employers, the excluded wages shall be used to determine benefit eligibility. However, any benefits otherwise chargeable to a contribution employer's account shall be charged to the fund's balancing account.

Dated and mailed February 7, 2006
aederje . urr : 132 : 1 :  MC 640.03   MC 640.05  MC 640.06

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The commission did consult with the ALJ who presided at the hearing regarding his impressions of witness credibility and demeanor. The ALJ indicated that the employee came across as a very assertive individual. The ALJ indicated that he found the employee generally credible. The ALJ did not impart any demeanor impressions of the employer's witnesses that led to his decision. For reasons set forth above, the commission disagrees with the ALJ's conclusion that the employee's actions did not rise to the level of misconduct connected with her work for the employer.

 

NOTE: Repayment instructions will be mailed after this decision becomes final. The department will with hold benefits due for future weeks of unemployment in order to off set over payment of U.I. and other special benefit programs that are due to this state, an other state or to the federal government.

Contact the Unemployment Insurance Division, Collections Unit, P. O. Box 7888, Madison, WI 53707, to establish an agreement to repay the over payment.

 

 

ROBERT GLASER, Commissioner (dissenting):

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.

The employee indicated in her October 5, 2004, e-mail to her supervisor that she would "follow Alan's instruction to the letter of not communicating with anyone but you on the staff if I question my superiors' decisions." That is what the employee did. The ALJ was correct that the employee did not, after being given the directive by the director, communicate with staff other than her supervisor in which she questioned a decision made by a superior. The e-mails to her former professor and Ms. Bendix did not violate the directive as they were not members of staff. In her communication with Ms. Muchin-Young she did not technically question a decision made by her superiors, but did indicate she was going to file a grievance against the director and wanted him to quit or to be walking on eggshells. Her communications with Ms. Schmidt, her supervisor, did not violate the directive. Again, the one e-mail to staff other than her supervisor indicated she was on a righteous wrath, but again did not technically reference a decision by her superiors. The one time she did question a decision by the director was when she went to the union steward about filing a grievance about the "gag order" as the employee called it.

The employee did not violate the director's instructions. I would find, consistent with the commission's prior cases, that the employee should have been warned that her conduct was jeopardizing her continued employment. The commission has been consistent in holding, except in those cases in which the alleged conduct is sufficiently egregious, that, before there can be a finding of misconduct, the employee has to be aware or have reason to be aware that her job is in jeopardy or will be if she engages in the subject conduct. See, e.g., Tolliver v. Wendy's Old Fashioned Hamburgers, UI Dec. Hearing No. 05602052RC (LIRC June 15, 2005); Williams v. Sunshine Cleaners Inc., UI Dec. Hearing No. 05600483MW (LIRC May 24, 2005); Jackson v. The Wackenhut Corporation, UI Dec. Hearing No. 05600559MW (LIRC May 12, 2005); Doherty v. Plymouth Lubrication Inc., UI Dec. Hearing No. 04605049MW (LIRC Feb. 25, 2005); Kaiser v. Wausau Steel Corp., UI Dec. Hearing No. 04200083WU (LIRC July 8, 2004); Hoppe v. Perfecseal Inc., UI Dec. Hearing No. 04400033OS (LIRC June 29, 2004); Cadotte v. Prime Care Health Plan, UI Dec. Hearing No. 03608737MW (LIRC July 7, 2004); Holcomb v. Catholic Family Life Insurance, UI Dec. Hearing No. 03605434MW (LIRC March 18, 2004); Kreuzpaintner v. Menards, UI Dec. Hearing No. 03605888MW (LIRC March 16, 2004); Metzger v. Casey's Marketing Co., UI Dec. Hearing No. 03002478BD (LIRC Nov. 7, 2003); Ward v. Diamond Detective Agency Inc., UI Dec. Hearing No. 03604533MW (LIRC Nov. 5, 2003); Mullan v. The Equitable Bank SSB, UI Dec. Hearing No. 02610586MW (LIRC June 15, 2003); Smallcombe v. The Noodle Shop Co., UI Dec. Hearing No. 02608958 (LIRC June 10, 2003); Kahl v. Knight Mfg. Corp., UI Dec. Hearing No. 02008166JV (LIRC May 16, 2003); Ness v. Deli-More, UI Dec. Hearing No. 02403062GB (LIRC April 10, 2003); Skavland v. Oldenburg Group Inc., UI Dec. Hearing No. 02608860MW (LIRC April 4, 2003); Munoz v. LaCosta, Inc., UI Dec. Hearing No. 02607640MW (LIRC April 4, 2003); Hainz v. Nelson Industries, Inc., UI Dec. Hearing No. 00003095MD (LIRC Oct. 3, 2000); and Marcolini v. Alma Public Schools, UI Dec. Hearing No. 78-20774EX (LIRC May 29, 1979). In this case, there was no evidence that the employer alerted the employee that her conduct was jeopardizing her continued employment.

While it is understandable that the director took exception to the employee's actions, I do not find the employee's conduct to be so egregious that no warning was necessary.

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

 

cc:
Attorney Douglas J. Carroll, Jr.
City Attorney James A. Wyss



Appealed to Circuit Court.  Affirmed December 7, 2007.   [Circuit Court decision]

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


Footnotes:

(1)( Back ) Connie Willems, Dale Gort, Gloria Wallace, Lisa Bruere, and Rachel Muchin-Young.

 


uploaded 2006/02/10