Marathon Elec. Mfg. Corp. v. Industrial Commission
| Decision Date | 01 June 1955 |
| Citation | 269 Wis. 394,70 N.W.2d 576 |
| Parties | MARATHON ELECTRIC MFG. CORP., Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION and Leslie E. Dickinson, Respondents. MARATHON ELECTRIC MFG. CORP., Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION and Barbara Jones, Respondents. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Lines, Spooner & Quarles, Milwaukee, John G. Kamps, Laurence E. Gooding, Jr., Milwaukee, of counsel, for appellant.
Arnold J. Spencer, Austin T. Thorson, Madison, for respondent.
The brief submitted in behalf of the appellant employer in support of its motion for rehearing takes exception to the following sentence appearing in this court's original opinion, 269 Wis. at page 403, 69 N.W.2d at page 578:
'Section 108.04(5), Stats., bars an employee from benefits who has been discharged for misconduct, but the employer does not contend that these two employees were guilty of any act of misconduct justifying their discharge, nor would the evidence sustain such a finding.'
In making such statement we intended to refer only to conduct on the part of the employees Jones and Dickinson which occurred prior to the mailing and receipt of the employer's letter of February 29, 1952, which the Industrial Commission specifically found effectuated the discharge. The employer contended in its original brief, and repeats such contention in the brief now before us, that these two employees were guilty of acts of misconduct which were performed subsequent to February 29, 1952, which justified the employer in discharging them. As to Jones, such conduct consisted of her taking part in the picketing on March 14, 1952, while the charge against Dickinson is that he did not return to work on March 18, 1952, or thereafter, because he did not wish to cross the picket line.
We fail to see how conduct of an employee occurring after his discharge can constitute the basis for the discharge. Under the provisions of section 108.04(5), Stats., subsequent conduct by an individual who has been discharged, even if in retaliation for such discharge, would appear to be immaterial on the issue of his elegibility for unemployment compensation payments. The motion for rehearing is denied without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Continental Oil Co. v. Board of Labor Appeals
...Co. v. Commissioner of Labor, 227 Ark. 288, 298 S.W.2d 56; Marathon Electric Mfg. Corp. v. Industrial Comm., 269 Wis. 394, 69 N.W.2d 573, 70 N.W.2d 576; Lesser, Labor Dispute and Unemployment Compensation, 55 Yale Law Journal " * * *omp "Moreover, the terms 'leaving work' or 'left his work'......
-
Inter-Island Resorts, Limited v. Akahane
...Co. v. Commissioner of Labor, 227 Ark. 288, 298 S.W.2d 56; Marathon Electric Mfg. Corp. v. Industrial Comm., 269 Wis. 394, 69 N.W.2d 573, 70 N.W.2d 576; Lesser, Labor Dispute and Unemployment Compensation, 55 Yale Law Journal It is one of the fundamental tenets of the unemployment compensat......
-
Employment Sec. Administration v. Browning-Ferris, Inc.
...Emp. Sec. Comm., 352 Mich. 331, 89 N.W.2d 541 (1958); Marathon Electric Mfg. Corp. v. Industrial Comm., 269 Wis. 394, 69 N.W.2d 573, 70 N.W.2d 576 (1954).11 In the context of a labor dispute, "A lockout is the refusal by an employer to furnish available work to his regular employees." Ameri......
-
R.T. Madden, Inc. v. Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations
...Comm. (1954), 266 Wis. 73, 62 N.W.2d 577; Marathon Electric Mfg. Corp. v. Industrial Comm. (1955), 269 Wis. 394, 69 N.W.2d 573, 70 N.W.2d 576; Cooper's, Inc. v. Industrial Comm. (1962), 15 Wis.2d 589, 113 N.W.2d 425; Shawley v. Industrial Comm. (1962), 16 Wis.2d 535, 539, 114 N.W.2d 872; Ca......