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

KAYSHA S RANDLE, Employee

LONG HORN RED LOBSTER
OLIVE GARDEN, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 11004891MD


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 42 of 2011, 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 discharged not occurred.

Dated and mailed February 28, 2012
randlka . usd : 132 : 9

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 appeal tribunal decision which found that the employer discharged the employee for misconduct connected with her work. The employee states that it should be taken into consideration that she was participating in religious activities on the final occasion that she was absent without notice. However, it was the lack of notice, and not merely that she was absent, that resulted in her discharge. The evidence did not indicate that the employee was unable to provide notice to the employer on the final occasion that she would not be appearing for work as scheduled. The employee was free to engage in what she considers religious activities, but she should and could have alerted the employer that she would not be appearing for work as scheduled.



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


uploaded 2012/04/26