Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission --
Summary of Wisconsin Court Decision relating to Unemployment Insurance


Subject: Marine National Exchange Bank v. DILHR & Jenkins, Case No. 148-238 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Dane Co., May 24, 1976)

Digest Codes: MC 665.01

The employe worked in the collection department and her duties were to prepare incoming and outgoing collection items and to issue drafts and cashier checks and sell money orders and traveler’s checks. She was placed on probation by her supervisor because of her bad attitude, insubordination, and poor public relations. Under insubordination it was described that the employe was dissatisfied with respect to complying with the bank’s policies concerning breaks and lunch periods and she was told that her conduct in this respect would be reviewed at the end of her probationary period and that she would return as a satisfactory employe with the collection department or she would be terminated. Her conduct improved and she was taken off probation and retained as an employe.

About three months later she was discharged because she had failed to comply with the probationary suspension with respect to lunch breaks and that in one instance she had taken a lunch break in excess of 15 minutes over the 45 minutes permitted; she failed to comply with the probationary memorandum with respect to cessation of insubordination and fault finding; she failed to report to her supervisor a cash shortage of $153 and incorrectly filled out the variation ticket for such shortage; and she made “no charge” sales of money orders to persons other than employes.

The employe was called into the office to discuss these allegations and tardiness and absenteeism were not discussed at this meeting and no mention was made that she bad used the petty cash fund for coffee break money or other personal use. She was nevertheless discharged.

Held:  The court has held in several previous cases that where an employer has given the employe a specific reason or reasons for the discharge the employer is precluded from advancing other reasons not then communicated to the employe in an attempt to later justify the discharge. Tardiness and absenteeism are not mentioned as grounds for discharge and the employe’s testimony that these subjects were not mentioned stands undisputed. Therefore the court concludes that tardiness and absenteeism did not constitute part of the conduct for which the employe was discharged.

The court concludes that neither the evidence nor the findings of fact require the department as a matter of law to determine that the employe was discharged for misconduct connected with employment and benefits allowed.
 


Please note that this is a summary prepared by staff of the commission, not a verbatim reproduction of the court decision.

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