STATE OF WISCONSIN
BEFORE THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
FELICIANO YNOCENCIO, JR., Complainant,
UNITED AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 72,
Decision No. 29431-D
Mr. Feliciano Ynocencio, Jr., 5210 Admiralty Avenue, Racine,
Wisconsin 53406, appearing on his own behalf.
Murphy, Gillick, Wicht & Prachthauser, by Attorney George F.
Graf, Blue Mound Centre, 22370 West Bluemound Road, Suite 204, Waukesha,
Wisconsin 53186, appearing on behalf of United Auto Workers Local 72.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
On July 11, 2003, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission issued an Order
Affirming Examiner's Order Dismissing Complaint in the above matter wherein we
the Examiner did not err when denying Ynocencio's request for a postponement and
complaint when he did not present any evidence.
On July 30, 2003, Ynocencio filed a petition for rehearing stating the following:
1. My attorney, Michelle Danielson, did not
appear for my hearing on February 14,
2. I was never notified,
nor was the Court, by my attorney, Michelle Danielson, that she
would not be appearing on that day.
3. In my attorney's possession were all my
legal documents that indicated that the Union
discriminated against me along with other material facts.
4. My attorney,
Michelle Danielson, did not subpoena Union records for the last twenty-five (25) years that
showed all the grievances taken beyond the second step as I
Dec. No. 29431-D
Dec. No. 29431-D
5. The documents listed
in No. 4 would have proven that drug dealers and murders got
their jobs back.
6. I feel as though
Local 72 and the company intentionally discriminated against me so
I could not get my job back.
On August 11, 2003, Respondent United Auto Workers Local 72 filed a statement in
opposition to the petition.
Section 227.49(3), Stats., provides that rehearing will be granted only on the
(a) Some material error of law.
(b) Some material error
(c) The discovery of
new evidence sufficiently strong to reverse or modify the order, and
which could not have been previously discovered by due diligence.
Reviewing our July 11, 2003 decision, we are satisfied that we did not make material
of law or fact. We are also satisfied that we have either already considered the evidence
Ynoncencio in his petition or that the evidence is not:
. . . sufficiently strong to reverse or modify the order, and which could not have
previously discovered by due diligence.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is
The petition for rehearing is denied.
Given under our hands and seal at the City of Madison, Wisconsin, this 21st day of
WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
Judith Neumann, Chair
M. Bauman, Commissioner