BEFORE THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION


In the matter of the unemployment benefit claim of

SCOTT R HAMMERER, Employee

Involving the account of

SUPERAMERICA GROUP INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 93603196MW


Pursuant to the timely petition for review filed in the above-captioned matter, the commission has considered the petition and all relief requested. The commission has reviewed the applicable records and evidence and finds that the appeal tribunal's findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported thereby. The commission therefore adopts the findings and conclusions of the appeal tribunal as its own.

DECISION

The decision of the appeal tribunal is affirmed. Accordingly, the employe is ineligible for benefits beginning in week 13 of 1993, and until four weeks have elapsed since the end of the week of quitting and he has earned wages in covered employment performed after the week of quitting equaling at least four times his weekly benefit rate which would have been paid had the quitting not occurred.

Dated and mailed January 21, 1994
132 : CD5630   VL 1080.22

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Chairman

/s/ Richard T. Kreul, Commissioner

/s/ James R. Meier, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The employe has petitioned for commission review of the adverse appeal tribunal decision which found that the employe voluntarily terminated his employment and not for any reason which would permit immediate benefit payment. In the petition for review, the employe maintains he was not offered employment at a new location, but only the opportunity to submit an application for a transfer. However, the area manager testified that he had the authority to direct location managers to hire a worker and that he was going to exercise such authority in the employe's case.

The employe also maintains that since the employer itself recognizes the significant safety concerns arising as a result of employment in particular stores, the employe cannot be faulted for his decision not to be exposed to a greater risk of physical harm. However, the employe did not establish that he would in fact be exposed to a greater risk of physical harm. Rather, the employe relied on statements from co-workers regarding the conditions of work at the other stores. Further, simply because the employer offers "hazardous duty pay" does not mean that the employe's safety concerns rise to a level which would present good cause attributable to the employer for quitting his employment. Indeed, the commission has previously found that a voluntarily termination based on a belief that a particular job is dangerous does not rise to the level of good cause attributable to the employer. Denise Brewer v. Wells Fargo Armored S.C., LIRC decision dated December 10, 1993; Renee Thimm v. Pieper Electric, LIRC decision dated December 7, 1990. The employer's Appleton and 84th location may have been in a "hazardous" area but the employe did not demonstrate that he would have been subject to emotional and/or physical assaults at that location. The employe was relying solely on the statements of others and not on any personal knowledge regarding the conditions of work at the offered location.

For the above reasons, and reasons set forth in the appeal tribunal decision, the commission affirms that decision.

cc:
Attorney Thomas D Kuehl
Bihler & Kuehl SC


[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]