Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission --
Summary of Wisconsin Court Decision relating to Unemployment Insurance
Subject: James Davis v. B & T Mail Service, Inc., and LIRC, Case 02 CV 004153 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Milwaukee Co., November 25, 2002)
Digest Codes: VL 1001.09
The employee was a truck driver who drove postal routes for the employer, primarily between Milwaukee and Iron Ridge, Wisconsin. On Friday, 10/19/01, the employee had a disagreement with the dispatcher, who wanted him to drive an extra route up to Iron Ridge that night and to drive back there on Sunday, 10/21/01, to bring a truck back to be used that Monday. The employee argued that he did not want to do either of these things, but the dispatcher told him to either do them or not show up for work on Monday. The employee drove the truck up to Iron Ridge that Friday night, but on Sunday he told the employer he would not drive that day. The employer relented and indicated that the employee could just use a spare truck on Monday instead of going up and retrieving the other truck on Sunday. However, the employee replied that he would not take the spare truck on Monday because he did not like the way the dispatcher had talked to him on Friday. The employee did not show up for work on Monday nor on the following two days. The employer considered his behavior to constitute a quitting of his employment.
The appeal tribunal and the commission found a quit. The employee appealed and alleged that he was fired, that he failed to show up for work because his car developed a fuel leak and he had no transportation, and finally that he had telephoned his supervisor on Monday, 10/22/01, and been excused from work.
Held: The commission is affirmed. The commission found inconsistencies the employee’s testimony undercutting his allegation that he talked to the employer on that Monday morning. The commission inferred from the credible evidence that the employee deliberately chose not to report for work for three days, which constituted a quitting. Credible and substantial evidence supports the commission’s findings.
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 ]