Dielectric Corp. v. Labor and Industry Review Com'n
Decision Date | 07 January 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 81-2235,81-2235 |
Citation | 330 N.W.2d 606,111 Wis.2d 270 |
Parties | DIELECTRIC CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION, Defendant, Elaine K. Parys, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
Leonard S. Zubrensky of Zubrensky, Padden, Graf & Maloney, Milwaukee, for defendant-appellant.
James R. Scott and Thomas W. Mackenzie of Lindner, Honzik, Marsack, Hayman & Walsh, S.C., Milwaukee, for plaintiff-respondent.
Before VOSS, P.J., and BROWN and SCOTT, JJ.
Elaine Parys appeals from a decision of the circuit court for Waukesha county which set aside the order of the Labor and Industry Review Commission. 1 The order of the Labor and Industry Review Commission had affirmed an award to Parys of $2,899.32 for Dielectric's violation of sec. 102.35(3), Stats. 2 The issue presented here is whether Dielectric has shown that it had good cause to terminate Parys, after hiring her, so as not to be in violation of sec. 102.35(3) when it discharged her. After a full review of the record, we conclude that Dielectric did prove that it had good cause to fire Parys and that there was no evidence of bad faith. Because of this, we believe that sec. 102.35(3) has not been violated. Accordingly, we affirm.
Appellant Elaine Parys was hired by respondent Dielectric Corporation in the spring of 1974. In September of 1977, Parys was injured while using a drill press at work, suffering permanent disability to her left hand. Parys was on worker's compensation leave from Dielectric until her return to work on January 3, 1978. Prior to her accident, she had been employed exclusively as a drill press operator. However, upon her return, she was placed in the shipping department, a lower paying position, without a reduction in her previous rate of pay. Parys worked in the shipping department until October 13, 1978, when she was discharged. At that time, James Grieger, who acts as Dielectric's troubleshooter and who is not normally involved in layoffs except in the case of a troublemaker, informed Parys that the reason for her discharge was poor attendance. Grieger testified at trial that Parys' worker's compensation injury, which had occurred over one year earlier, was not a factor in his decision to discharge her.
The record shows that from the time Parys returned to work on January 3, 1978 until she was discharged, there were a number of days she had been absent from work due to various reasons. She had missed five days due to her worker's compensation hand injury, one day for furniture delivery, nineteen days due to bronchial infection or other illness, two days for other unknown reasons, and five days when she was on leave with permission from her supervisor. Thus, Parys missed a total of thirty-two days of work in a nine and one-half month period, not counting time off for vacation.
Dielectric's employment policy contained two separate and distinct provisions specifically pertaining to absenteeism. Non-noticed absences were labeled "unexcused" and were subject to a series of progressive disciplinary stages culminating in termination upon accumulation of seven such absences. Noticed absences were referred to as "excused," although the label pertained only to notice, not to employer forgiveness or approval of a particular absence.
In addition to the policy provisions pertaining to non-noticed absences, the Dielectric employment policy also contained a separate provision pertaining to termination of employees for excessive absenteeism. 3 Under this provision, employees were subject to termination if they missed more than twenty workdays in any calendar year regardless of the "excused" or "unexcused" nature of the absences. The provision did not provide for progressive disciplinary stages short of discharge. Dielectric alleges that it was under this policy provision that Parys was terminated.
Subsequent to her discharge, Parys filed an application with the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, Worker's Compensation Division, on October 17, 1978, alleging that Dielectric had violated sec. 102.35(3), Stats. This statute mandates that the employer rehire an employee who has been injured in the course of employment and who is employable again. Parys contends that she was never truly "rehired" by Dielectric. Instead, she argues that her rehiring was only a pro forma rehiring.
The hearing examiner, in his decision dated July 2, 1979, agreed with Parys and awarded her $2,899.32 for the employer's violation of sec. 102.35(3), Stats. Following this decision, Dielectric filed a petition for review. On November 21, 1979, the Labor and Industry Review Commission rendered its decision upholding the award of the examiner. Dielectric then filed suit in the Waukesha county circuit court asking for a reversal of the commission's order. In a decision dated October 23, 1981, the trial court set aside the order of the commission on the grounds that the findings of fact as found by the examiner and as affirmed by the Labor and Industry Review Commission did not support the award. More specifically, the trial court held that Parys was "rehired" within the meaning of the term as used in sec. 102.35(3) and that the evidence would support a finding of good faith on the part of the employer. Thus, the court found that Dielectric did not violate sec. 102.35(3) when Parys was later discharged.
Parys argues that the trial court erred when it reversed the commission's award. Parys' basis for this contention is that the trial court should have given deference to the agency's interpretation of this question of law and that the trial court should not have used a bad faith standard to determine whether her rights had been violated. We disagree.
This court does recognize the principle that some deference to the expertise of an agency is appropriate in certain situations. Pabst v. Department of Taxation, 19 Wis.2d 313, 323-24, 120 N.W.2d 77, 82 (1963). However, we do not feel that deference to the agency's expertise is required where the court is as competent as the agency to decide a question of law. Boynton Cab Co. v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations, 96 Wis.2d 396, 405-06, 291 N.W.2d 850, 855 (1980). Our supreme court has also indicated that where the agency decision on an issue of law is based upon a recently passed statute and there is a lack of administrative experience with the statute and there is minimal legislative history, the concept of deference to agency expertise is less compelling. Village of Whitefish Bay v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 34 Wis.2d 432, 444-45, 149 N.W.2d 662, 669 (1967).
In Board of School Directors of the City of Milwaukee v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 42 Wis.2d 637, 650, 168 N.W.2d 92, 98 (1969), our supreme court held that the construction of a statute is a question of law. In a subsequent case, the supreme court stated that "[q]uestions of law, including the construction, interpretation, or application of a statute, are reviewable ab initio." Boynton, 96 Wis.2d at 405, 291 N.W.2d at 855. The supreme court has also held that a court is not bound by the interpretation given to a statute by an administrative agency. City of Milwaukee v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, 71 Wis.2d 709, 714, 239 N.W.2d 63, 66 (1976).
We feel that because sec. 102.35, Stats., is relatively new and has little, if any, helpful legislative history or case law, this is a situation contemplated by the courts in Boynton and Whitefish Bay where a reviewing court, that is equally as competent as the agency, need not give deference to the agency's decision. Furthermore, we feel that based on Milwaukee v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, the trial court was clearly not bound by the commission's interpretation of sec. 102.35. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not commit error when it did not give deference to the commission's interpretation of sec. 102.35.
Parys also contends that the trial court should not have used the bad faith standard to determine whether her rights were violated. Parys argues that the "reasonable manner" standard utilized by the hearing examiner is the appropriate one in a dispute involving sec. 102.35(3), Stats. We disagree with this proposition also.
The plain language of sec. 102.35(3), Stats., indicates that this statute is designed to penalize an employer who "without reasonable cause refuses to rehire" an employee who was injured in the course of employment. There is no dispute that Parys suffered such an injury nor that she was rehired by Dielectric. The hearing examiner, in a decision affirmed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Deboer Transp. Inc. v. Swenson
...to rehire the employee.16See, e.g., West Bend Co. v. LIRC, 149 Wis.2d 110, 123, 438 N.W.2d 823 (1989); Dielectric Corp. v. LIRC, 111 Wis.2d 270, 330 N.W.2d 606 (Ct.App.1983); Groh v. Alyson Tool Corp., WC No.2004–002455 (LIRC Nov. 30, 2006); John D. Neal & Joseph Danas, Jr., Worker's Compen......
-
Schachtner v. Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, Equal Rights Div.
...However, deference to the expertise of an administrative agency may be appropriate in some situations. Dielectric Corp. v. LIRC, 111 Wis.2d 270, 275, 330 N.W.2d 606, 609 (Ct.App.1983). When the agency has little if any expertise in an area, deference is not appropriate. See id.; Kimberly-Cl......
-
Deboer Transp., Inc. v. Swenson
...in employing safe drivers. To hold otherwise would place an unreasonable burden on employers. See Dielectric Corp. v. LIRC, 111 Wis.2d 270, 274, 279, 330 N.W.2d 606 (Ct.App.1983) (employer did not violate § 102.35(3) when discharging injured employee pursuant to an absenteeism policy premis......
-
West Allis School Dist. v. Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations
...Accordingly, as a penal statute, it must be strictly construed. The school district also relies upon dicta in Dielectric v. LIRC, 111 Wis.2d 270, 276, 330 N.W.2d 606 (Ct.App.1983), which referred to the statute as being "designed to penalize an employer ...." Additionally, even a quick peru......