BEFORE THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION

IDA J. LENZ, Employee

LANOWAY CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 88-002760

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 eligible for benefits, if she is otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed April 5, 1989
110 : CD0651   VL 1080.02

/s/ Hugh C. Henderson, Chairman

/s/ Carl W. Thompson, Commissioner

Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In his petition for review, the employer argues that the decision of the Administrative Law Judge was based on the false assumption of the employe that she was to be receiving paid vacation, and the employer asserts that he never promised the employe paid vacation. However, the employe testified credibly and convincingly at the hearing that when she was first hired the employer told her that she would be entitled to paid vacation. The Administrative Law Judge, who was in a position to observe both witnesses while they testified, concluded that the employe's testimony, that the employer had in fact promised the employe paid vacation, was more credible, and that the employer therefore went back on his word when he denied her paid vacation when it was requested in June 1988. Based on a careful review of the record, the Commission agrees that the employe's testimony was more credible. The Commission therefore views this as a case in which an employer initially promised an employe certain significant benefits of employment -- paid vacation -- and subsequently reneged on that promise. The employe had good cause to terminate her employment, within the meaning of section 108.04 (7)(b), Stats., not only because of the unjustified denial to her of a benefit to which she was entitled but also because the employer had been dishonest with her and gave her reason to doubt his word. It is generally accepted that an employe owes an employer a duty of honesty; the Commission believes there is a corollary duty of honesty owed by an employer to an employe, particularly in respect to promises by the employer about rights to benefits that an employe will accrue by engaging in services. A breach of such a promise can constitute good cause for a voluntary termination of employment. The Commission finds it to have constituted such good cause in this case.

The employe's voluntary termination permanently severed the employment relationship. Although she was offered work with the employer on the next day, her refusal of that offer of work did not disqualify her from benefits because she had good cause to refuse that work. The employer's dishonesty with her concerning the benefits to which she would be entitled and the denial to her of a paid vacation benefit to which she had been entitled by virtue of the employer's earlier promises, constituted good cause for the employe to decline work offered by that employer.

cc: Walter Stern, Attorney

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

uploaded 2001/04/20