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

ERIC A LENZ, Employee

MILLWORK DISTRIBUTORS INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 11404235AP


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 44 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 discharge not occurred.

Dated and mailed March 16, 2012
lenzeri . usd : 132 : 1

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 which found that the employer discharged the employee for misconduct connected with his work for the employer. Notwithstanding whether the employer proved that the employee had anger control issues, the only reason the employee was employed after September 28 was because he begged for another chance. The employee lasted just a month before he had a confrontation with the inventory control specialist. The inventory control specialist did make the first snide remark while passing the employee's work station. The employee then challenged her right to criticize. The inventory control person replied that she was considered a supervisor. A manager stepped in and told the employee to calm down.

The employee could have dropped the matter, and waited for his supervisor to return the next week or taken the matter up with operations manager. Instead, after ten minutes the employee walked towards the inventory control specialist and, in a loud tone of voice, challenged her authority and ability to judge him. He also declared that he would not take orders from her or any other woman.

The employee denied stating that he would not take orders from any other woman. However, the inventory control specialist testified that the employee made that comment. More convincingly, the manager who witnessed both disputes, and whom the employee described as a friend, Mr. Runlow, testified that the employee made the comment that no woman was going to tell him what to do. The employee's disruptive and chauvinistic conduct and statements demonstrated an intentional and substantial disregard of standards of behavior the employer had a right to expect of the employee.



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


uploaded 2012/04/26