(Download) "Dielectric Corporation v. Labor & Industry" by Court of Appeals of Wisconsin * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Dielectric Corporation v. Labor & Industry
- Author : Court of Appeals of Wisconsin
- Release Date : January 07, 1983
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 64 KB
Description
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.