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


Subject: Robert Schroeder  v. Sid Tool Co. and LIRC, Case No. 02-CV-683 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Outagamie Co., March 12, 2003)

Digest Codes: PC 711 - Hearing, Late Request For Hearing - Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 140.01(2)(c)4. - timeliness of appeal determined by date of private postage meter mark - metered 11/9, received by Dept. 10 days later - no indication in record that private meter mark was fraudulently applied - appeal timely

Schroeder began work for Sid Tool in the warehouse in January 2000. When he began work he received an employee handbook containing the employer's policies which included a prohibition of the use of foul or abusive language. In October 2001 Schroeder requested two days off around deer hunting season in November. His request for one of those days was denied because another warehouse employee had already asked to be off and had been given permission. When notified of the denial Schroeder became upset, swore and took a couple of steps toward a team leader but then backed off. He spoke in a loud and angry voice. He was discharged two days later.

Sid Tool appealed an initial determination of the department that allowed benefits. The last day to appeal was November 9, 2001. The appeal was dated November 9, 2001, and was received by the department in an envelope containing Sid Tool's private postage meter date of November 9, 2001. It was received by the department on November 19, 2001, and was treated as timely. No issue of the timeliness of the appeal was presented to the department or the commission.

The commission affirmed a decision of an administrative law judge that Schroeder had been discharged for misconduct.

Held: The treatment of Sid Tool's appeal as timely by the department and the commission is consistent with the statutes and administrative code. There is no indication in the record that the private meter mark of the employer was fraudulently applied. The appeal was timely.

The commission's findings of fact concerning Schroeder's conduct are supported by credible and substantial evidence in the record. The commission's decision that such conduct is misconduct is entitled to deference. Therefore the decision is affirmed and benefits are denied.


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 ]