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

CODY WILSON, Employee

CLASEN QUALITY COATINGS INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 07004934MD


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 43 of 2007, 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 May 8, 2008
wilsoco . usd : 164 : 1 MC 664

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairperson

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In his petition for commission review the employee argues with the administrative law judge's findings that his errors were not intentional, but that his failure to take the time necessary to ensure accurate work evinced a wilful and substantial disregard for the employer's interests. The employee questions how the administrative law judge could find he did not intend to make mistakes but that his mistakes were intentional. The employee also argues that that the employer's need for speed and quantity drove his performance and that his employment depended upon him working fast. Finally, the employee contends that any errors he made can be attributed to acts of ordinary negligence or isolated instances of poor judgment. The employee's arguments fail. While the administrative law judge found that the employee did not intend to make errors, that finding did not preclude a conclusion that his actions in repeatedly making production errors due to his failures to slow down and concentrate on his work evinced misconduct. The employee was aware that the employer expected careful work and that his job was in jeopardy based upon his repeated production errors. The record does not support a conclusion that the employee needed to work fast in order to keep his job. To the contrary, the employee's supervisor testified without rebuttal that he repeatedly advised the employee to slow down and that he told the employee if there were any complaints he was working too slowly he, the employee's supervisor, would accept responsibility. The commission agrees with the appeal tribunal that the employee's continual failure to slow down and concentrate more fully on his work, resulting in large and costly errors, went beyond ordinary negligence and evinced misconduct. Accordingly, the appeal tribunal decision is affirmed.

cc:
Attorney David Albino
Attorney Jessica Hutson



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


uploaded 2008/05/27