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

TIFFANY M NESMITH, Employee

VILLAGE OF PLEASANT PRAIRIE, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 11601404RC


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 48 of 2010, 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. The benefit year is hereby set aside.

Dated and mailed July 28, 2011
nesmiti : 172 : 5

BY THE COMMISSION:

/s/ Robert Glaser, Chairperson

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

/s/ Laurie R. McCallum, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The employee has petitioned for commission review of the adverse appeal tribunal decision. The employee argues generally that the hearing was unfair and that the testimony presented by the employer was incredible. The employer did not provide the commission with a response to employee's petition for commission review.

The testimony reflects that the Assistant Police Chief heard the real-time radio communications between the Police Chief, who was one of two law enforcement officers that responded to a suspicious subject dispatch call, and the employee's response to the Chief's question of when that call had come in, which was: the "call came in about 15 minutes ago" and "correction, 5 minutes ago." On the day of the incident, and only a few hours after the incident occurred, when the Assistant Police Chief confronted the employee with the actual time of 28 minutes between the suspicious-subject call and the time that the employee dispatched officers to the scene, the employee said that the call had not been held for about 30 minutes. Moreover, the employee added that the caller told the employee during the dispatch call that the subject left the area 15 minutes prior to the employee getting the call dispatched. None of the employee's responses were true; thus, the employee lied. On the other hand, the employer's account of the incident was credible and supported by the record.

Every employer, especially one that is entrusted with ensuring public safety, has the right to expect honesty from its employees. Trust is such a fundamental component of the employment relationship that the commission and the courts have consistently held that an employee's dishonesty in the course of this relationship supports a conclusion of misconduct, particularly where, as here, the employee's actions have a potentially significant effect on the safety of law enforcement officers and the general public. See, Carol Maglio v. City of Milwaukee and LIRC, No. 94-CV-008499 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Milw. Co. May 23, 1995), and Gregory v. LIRC and MPS, Case No. 97-CV-001333 (Cir. Ct. Milw. Co. Dec. 4, 1997). Therefore, the ALJ correctly concluded that the employee's intentional dishonesty constituted misconduct under the Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck & Ind. Comm., 237 Wis. 249, 296 N.W. 636 (1941) standard.


Appealed to Circuit Court.  Affirmed January 1, 2012.

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


uploaded 2011/09/13