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


STEPHAN M SHANKLIN, Employee

SODEXHO MANAGEMENT CORP, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 00604336MW


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 13 of 2000, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed September 21, 2000
shankst.usd : 132 : 1 MC 605.091

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

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's agent states that the employer has a reasonable expectation for workers to report to work as scheduled or to advise the employer of their intentions. However, the issue for purposes of determining whether the employe's discharge was for misconduct connected with his work is whether the employe was absent for generally valid reasons and with notice to the employer. The employer was aware that the employe would not be appearing for work as scheduled. The employe's stay at the Huber facility was not related to his employment with the employer. The employe was unable to appear for work because he missed one of four buses that he needed to ride to return to the Huber facility and thus was restricted to the facility. While the employer was clearly justified in discharging the employe because of his absence from work, the evidence does not demonstrate that the employee engaged in intentional and wilful conduct in substantial disregard of the employer's interests. For these reasons, and for the reasons set forth in the appeal tribunal decision, the commission affirms that decision.

cc:
SODEXHO MANAGEMENT
BEL AIR HEALTH CARE CENTER


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