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


MICHELL A STEAGALL, Employe

ANDERSEN MCMAHON CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 99200918EC


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 in week 22 of 1999, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed October 8, 1999
steagmi.usd : 105 : 1  MC 626

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The commission has affirmed the appeal tribunal decision in this case, because it agrees with the administrative law judge's conclusion of discharge. There is no question but that the employe was upset at the meeting in question and, indeed, told the employer that the employer was going to have to discharge her. It still remained the employer's option not to do so, however. The employe had valid reasons why she could not commit to the employer's request that she work late every night June 21 - June 25. The record also indicates that the employe had worked many hours for the employer in such situations previously, when her husband's work circumstances had been different.

In any event, before the employe took off her name tag, the employer stated expressly that this was not going to work out. As the administrative law judge found, such a statement implies that the employe could not continue working for the employer. Indeed, that is what the statement commonly means. For these reasons, the commission agrees with the administrative law judge's conclusion of discharge. The commission also agrees with the administrative law judge, finally, that the discharge was not for misconduct for unemployment insurance purposes. As indicated above, the employe had valid reasons for not being able to commit to working late the entire week in question.


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