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


WARREN E WHITE JR, Employe

ROUNDYS INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 99602973MW


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 employe is eligible for benefits beginning in week 14 of 1999, if otherwise eligible.

Dated and mailed August 18, 1999
whitewa.usd : 132 : 1 MC 605.05 MC 688

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The employer has petitioned for commission review of the adverse appeal tribunal decision which found that the employe was discharged from his employment but not for misconduct connected with his work. The employer maintains in its petition that the employe's failure to report to work or call for three days constituted misconduct connected with his work. The employer alleged at the hearing that its policy provided that three days with no-call/no-show was a voluntary resignation. However, the employer did not bring a copy of the policy to the hearing. Generally, the commission will find three consecutive days of no-call/no-show to indicate an abandonment of the employe's job. The employe was not a no-call/no-show for three consecutive days in this case. While the employer's separation notice claimed that the employe resigned by his absence on March 16, 17 and 23 without notice to the employer, the employe was actually in contact with the employer on March 15, and March 22, 1999. Finally, the commission notes that a large portion of the employer's case relies on a document completed by "SD." "SD" did not appear at the hearing to provide testimony regarding her contacts with the employe. For these reasons, and for the reasons set forth in the appeal tribunal decision, the commission affirms that decision.


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