STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION
P O BOX 8126, MADISON, WI 53708-8126 (608/266-9850)

SANDRA SADA, Employee 

SEEK INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 01400990AP


On March 13, 2001, the Department of Workforce Development issued an initial determination which held that the employee's quit was not for a reason allowing for immediate eligibility for unemployment insurance. The employee filed a timely request for hearing on the adverse determination, and hearing was held on April 26, 2001 in Appleton, Wisconsin before a department administrative law judge. On April 27, 2001, the administrative law judge issued an appeal tribunal decision reversing the initial determination. The employer filed a timely petition for commission review of the adverse appeal tribunal decision, and the matter now is ready for disposition.

Based upon the applicable law and the records and other evidence in the case, the commission issues the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The employee declined an offer of work from the employer, which led to the separation now at issue. The commission concludes that the separation was a quit by the employee, but not with good cause attributable to the employer or for any other reason constituting an exception to the general quit disqualification of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(a). The commission therefore reverses the appeal tribunal decision.

The employee worked as a full-time, third-shift machine operator in eight weeks for the employer, a temporary staffing service. There was no more work available for her in that position after November 7. However, she was offered a position with another employer client as a full-time, third-shift packager for $7.50 per hour to begin November 10, 2000 (week 46). The employee declined the offer because she thought the rate of pay was too low. She was offered no further assignments. Both parties were in agreement that the employee quit her job by refusing continued work with the employer, and the commission so finds.

The secondary issue is whether the employee's quit was with good cause attributable to the employer. The commission must conclude that it was not. The employee's first assignment for the employer paid $8.00 per hour. Her second assignment paid $7.50 per hour, only an approximately 6 percent reduction. While the commission has held that wage reductions of even 11 percent constitute good cause for an employee's quit, a 6 percent reduction simply is not great enough to constitute good cause attributable to an employer for a quit, absent additional exigent circumstances not present here (such as mistreatment by an employer, or that the wage is "non-prevailing" within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(9)(b)).

The commission therefore concludes that, in week 46 of 2000, the employee quit her employment with the employer, but not with good cause attributable thereto or for any other reason constituting an exception to the quit disqualification of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(a).

DECISION

The appeal tribunal decision is reversed. Accordingly, the employee is ineligible for benefits beginning in week 46 of 2000, and until four weeks have elapsed since the end of the week of quitting and she has earned wages in covered employment performed after the week of quitting equaling at least four times her weekly benefit rate which would have been paid had the quitting not occurred. There is no overpayment as a result of this decision. Department records indicate that the employee requalified for unemployment insurance eligibility, as of the first week claimed subsequent to her quit.

Dated and mailed June 29, 2001
sadasan . urr : 105 : 1  VL 1059.201

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

NOTE: The commission did not confer with the administrative law judge before determining to reverse the appeal tribunal decision in this case. The commission's reversal is not based upon a differing credibility assessment from that made by the administrative law judge; rather, the administrative law judge simply committed mathematical error in finding that a wage reduction from $8.00 to $7.50 per hour was a 10 percent reduction.


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


uploaded 2001/07/02