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

SKAIDRA R PLIURA, Employee

JAG FOOTWEAR, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 10611566RC


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 for about six months as an assistant manager for the employer, an operator of a retail business. Her last day of work was August 8, 2009 (week 33). She was discharged on August 10, 2009 (week 33) for violating the employer's bank deposit policies by permitting her boyfriend to make a night drop.

On July 20, 2009, the employee completed store closing procedures and then proceeded to the bank with the day's bank deposit. She was to place the deposit bag in the bank's night deposit drop box. Her boyfriend drove her to the bank and she told him to drop the deposit because she could not get out of the car without hitting some poles. The bank reported money was missing and she was discharged for violating the deposit policy.

The issue is whether the employee was discharged for misconduct connected with her work.

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' within the meaning of the statute."

The employee in this case violated the employer's cash handling policy. The employee was or should have been aware that she needed to make the deposit herself. Cash handling policies are of extreme importance to any employer and careless handling of cash can result in monetary loss to the employer. Failure to follow cash handling policies exactly can potentially cause the employer to lose trust in a worker. As such, a worker should be extremely careful to follow an employer's cash handling policy exactly. The employee's actions in allowing her boyfriend to take the deposit from the car to the night drop box was so negligent as to amount to misconduct connected with her work.

The commission therefore finds that in week 33 of 2009, the employee was discharged for misconduct connected with her employment within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(5).

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is reversed. Accordingly, the employee is ineligible for benefits beginning in week 33 of 2009, 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. There is no overpayment as a result of this decision.

Dated and Mailed June 10, 2011
pliursk . urr : 145 : 6

BY THE COMMISSION:

Robert Glaser, Chairperson

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

/s/ Laurie R. McCallum, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The commission did not discuss witness credibility and demeanor with the ALJ who held the hearing. The evidence in the record was not disputed. The commission reversed the ALJ's decision because it reached a different conclusion when it applied the law to the facts found by the ALJ.


cc: Continental Inc.


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


uploaded 2011/08/15