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 ]