Unbelievable UI Determination

LindaS · July 2004

I had an employee who was terminated after a post-accident drug screen came back positive for marijuana. In talking with her about the test she admitted to smoking a joint a couple of days prior to the accident.

Our drug and alcohol policy is very clear regarding this issue as well as the requirement for pre-employment and reasonable suspicion drug and alcohol testing.

Anyway I just received the IU determination and it stated that, although she failed the drug test and we had a legitimate business reason to terminate her, our policy does not prohibit on and off duty drug use so the termination does not rise to the level of misconduct.

I don't know what the state of WI wants from it's employers!!! The employees receive a copy of the policy, it is something that is openly discussed in that employees know what the company stance is on this issue and it is administered consistently!!

I would like to ask the adjudicator exactly WHAT rises to the level of misconduct in the state of WI!!! Now I have to spend my time appealing a decision that, based on prior experience, seemed like a "slam dunk" win for us.

Thanks for letting me vent a little.

mcmel · July 2004

Your adjudicator's name didn't start with D, did it? x;) I've run into some real issues with the unemployment office also; anybody with common sense wouldn't think these ees would qualify with some of the instances I've experienced. Very frustrating!

Pork · July 2004

Been there and done that, I have won 4 appeals and lost one that I just knew we would win; however, "wanton disregard for the companies policy, procedures, and property" was not sufficiently proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the employee was out to do his self or the company property damage". He did not choose to wreck the rig and destroy the animals he was carrying. He only chose to drive to fast for the conditions and the animals reacted causeing the trailer to become overloaded to the left side of the trailer. It was not his fault, it was the fault of the poor animals headed to market at prime weight and top dollar!

The community enjoyed that one, we were able to rid ourselves of 70 dead animals real quick. The pick-up trucks and front end loader tractors were coming and going!

PORK

HR in CA · July 2004

I can relate! I just returned from a hearing this morning, that we will most likely lose.

Even stealing caught on video tape has gone the employee's way. I know of a case where an empoyee failed to show up to work for 3 days and was released for job abandonment. During the hearing the employee admitted to going on a drinking binge and was trapped in his truck by a pack of dogs. When asked why the employee didn't just drive away, he replied, I was far to drunk to drive, I might have hit the dogs.

Keep fighting the battles, maybe in the future the tides may turn back the other way.

Whatever · July 2004

Where we have terminated ees in NJ for not reaching quotas, turning out poor quality work etc., (which the union won't challenge if we've followed all the steps), if the ee tells unemployment that they tried but were incapable of doing the job, they will collect. This reached an all time low when an ee fell asleep while operating a machine and told UI that they had tried to stay awake but they were tired because they had partied the night before. They were awarded UI, but fortunately, this is one challenge we won.

Bill ONeill · July 2004

Yea, Been there. It's the ones that you think are a slam dunk in your favor, that you lose. But, no matter how ridiculious the UC decisions are, they pale to some of the WC decisions that come down.

jfletcher · July 2004

Amen to that

Unbelievable UI Determination

Comments