Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission --
Summary of Wisconsin Court Decision relating to Unemployment Insurance
Subject: Leesa M. Robinson v. LIRC and Check Into Cash, Case No. 05CV000337 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Milwaukee Co., July 25, 2005)
Digest Codes: MC 655 MC 657 PC 733
The employee worked approximately ten months as a manager of a check cashing
store. During that time, the employee also held a second job with a real estate
firm. Prior to being discharged the employee received a written warning
regarding her job performance and productivity, cautioning her that future
deficiencies in her work would lead to further corrective action including
termination. Subsequently, the employee’s supervisor discovered that the
employee had not completed certain required daily tasks including filing checks,
and files, making necessary phone calls and performing a daily audit.
Additionally, this supervisor found that the employee had accessed six internet
sites on one day, none of which related to the employer’s business. The manager
also received six personal phone calls for the employee, two of which inquired
about particular real estate properties. Also a 30 page copy of a commitment for
title insurance, that listed the employee’s name as the selling broker, was
faxed to the employee’s attention at work. The employer’s work rules expressly
prohibit excessive use of company telephones for personal calls, failure to
perform assigned job duties or tasks and unauthorized use of company equipment
or property, including telephone and computer, for personal reasons or profit.
The employer discharged the employee for violating its company rules, despite
On appeal to circuit court, the employee argued that the commission acted without or in excess of its powers, specifically in regard to not conducting a credibility conference and by issuing conclusions which were not supported by credible and substantial evidence.
Held: The circuit court affirmed the commission’s decision which found that the employee’s discharge was for misconduct. The court held that the commission did not act without or in excess of its powers concerning the credibility consultation issue. The court held that the legal conclusion reached by the commission while different than the conclusion reached by the ALJ was based upon the same material findings of fact as found by the ALJ and the commission was under no obligation to confer with the ALJ as to his credibility and demeanor impressions in forming its legal conclusion. Additionally, the commission’s findings were supported by credible and substantial evidence and its conclusion of misconduct was reasonably determined by the commission.
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 ]