 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. State6/28/2002
and to try to persuade the employer to impose a lesser penalty. Based on this reasoning, the Commission then concluded that the pre-disciplinary process provided by UWM in this case "possessed enough of the attributes of a sufficient due process proceeding to support a conclusion that respondent had a reasonable basis in law and fact for contending that the just cause standard had been met in this regard." The Commission discussed the "attributes" present in this case as follows:
Under the facts present here, appellant was given notice of the specific allegation against him, i.e., the . . . [racist] joke he had repeated; was given an opportunity to answer the allegation during his meeting with Mr. Sroka; was made aware as a part of his meeting with Mr. Sroka that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss this particular allegation and what consequence should follow; was provided notice, although not until the end of his meeting with Mr. Sroka, of the fact that a ten-day suspension was being contemplated; and was provided an opportunity, through his meeting with Chief Clark, to persuade the employer to impose a lesser penalty.
Based on these "attributes," the Commission determined that UWM was substantially justified in its position and it denied Brenon's application for costs and fees on the ten-day suspension.
. Brenon disagrees with this conclusion for three main reasons.
. First, Brenon asserts that his notice was inadequate. His only notice, he argues, was an electronic mail message from Sroka telling him that he wanted to talk to him about "a personnel matter" but that it was "no big deal." Further, although Sroka informed him of the allegations against him during their meeting, Brenon argues that he was not notified that Clark was actually considering suspension or termination. Adequate notice, he asserts, would have provided him with the opportunity to prepare responses to the allegations and to obtain counsel prior to the meetings.
. Second, he argues that his meetings with Sroka and Clark provided no real opportunity for him to be heard. In particular, he argues that his meeting with Clark was meaningless because Clark had no authority to change any disciplinary decision. UWM administration officials, Brenon contends, had determined his discipline before the meeting, and therefore, he was not afforded any meaningful hearing prior to discipline.
. Third and finally, Brenon argues that UWM failed to follow the guidelines for disciplinary procedure imposed by the collective bargaining agreement that UWM voluntarily applied to non-union employees. Under these union rules, Brenon contends that discipline must be applied progressively, which first requires a reprimand before suspension. Brenon asserts that an agency is not substantially justified in its position if it fails to follow its own rules, citing Stern v. DHFS, 212 Wis. 2d 393, 569 N.W.2d 79 (Ct. App. 1997).
. Despite these arguments, when granting great weight deference to the Commission's determination, we conclude that its decision must be upheld. In making its determination, the Commission looked collectively at all of the occurrences before UWM suspended Brenon. The Commission did not conclude that these occurrences were sufficient to provide Brenon with due process. It only determined that these occurrences were sufficient for UWM to conclude that Brenon had been adequately notified and heard and that it could then suspend him. We uphold this decision.
. Certainly, UWM could have and should have provided Brenon with additional notice of the allegations against him prior to any meetings in order for Brenon to adequately prepare
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Wisconsin Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|