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


LORI A RISTOW, Employe

ASSOCIATED SERVICE CORP, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 99402437AP


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 42 of 1999, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed February 3, 2000
ristolo.usd : 145 : 7   MC 688

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

In its petition for commission review the employer asserts that the employe was discharged for violation of company policies. The employer demonstrated that the employe was discharged for continual attendance violations after being warned. The employe agreed that she had been warned, however, she made no attempt to seek approval from the employer prior to having a meeting with her teacher. The employer asserts that the fact that the employe failed to give the employer notice, given that she had been given a final warning regarding her attendance, amounted to such a wilful and substantial disregard of the employer's interests as to amount to misconduct connected with her work. However, the employe had valid reasons for all of her absences. The employe and her son had a number of medical problems. The employer asserts that the employe should have gotten approval from the employer to be late if she needed to meet with her son's teacher. The commission agrees. However, it appeared from the record that she believed she would be able to get to work on time. Even if the employe's belief was not well founded, all her other attendance violations were for valid reasons, and a single incident of tardiness, even though it was not for a valid reason, does not rise to the level of misconduct connected with her work.

cc: RE HARRINGTON

CAROL WEIDINGER
HARRINGTON BENEFIT SERVICES


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