ROBERT H SCHLIPP, Employee

NORTHWEST SIDING INC, Employer

An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Division of Unemployment Insurance of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and conclusion in that decision as its own.

The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee is ineligible for benefits beginning in week 51 of 2000, and until four weeks have elapsed since the end of the week of quitting and the employee has earned wages in covered employment performed after the week of quitting equaling at least four times the employee's weekly benefit rate which would have been paid had the quitting not occurred. The employee is required to repay the sum of $626 to the unemployment reserve fund.

Dated and mailed July 6, 2001
schliro . usd : 145 : 3  VL 1007.01

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

In his petition for commission review the employee asserts, that because he did not have the money to have his vehicle repaired, the ending of his employment was not voluntary. The employee further asserts that the employer essentially ended his employment because he took away the means of transportation that the employee had relied upon to get to work, and that at the time he did so, he realized that the employee had no other transportation. However, the employee himself testified that he intended to go to work, because his vehicle was working but that he broke down on the way to work. Further the employee knew once he no longer had a company vehicle that he had to find his own transportation to the job site. The employee did not have his vehicle repaired, stopped reporting to work, and thus the employment relationship ended. The employee did not contact the employer to discuss the matter, but simply stopped reporting to work. Regardless of how the parties construed the situation, the employee did make the determination to stop reporting for work. This conduct was inconsistent with the continuation of the employment relationship and for unemployment compensation purposes constituted a quitting.

The employee asserts that his failure to get his truck repaired was not voluntary, and therefore he did not quit his job. He further states that he only needed his own truck because the employer took away the truck he had been using, without any real notice. However, it is generally considered the responsibility of a worker to get to work. While the employer did furnish the employee with a truck for some of his employment, it was not demonstrated that this was more than a favor to the employee. Other workers were not furnished with company vehicles. In addition, the employee did not assert that he was given a vehicle during the entire time he worked for the employer. The employee further argues that the employer's repossession of the truck amounted to good cause attributable to the employer because the job site was a considerable distance from the employee's home. Not only was the employee expected to drive a considerable distance, but the employee states that the employer's repossession of the truck amounted to a change in the conditions of his employment that would justify his quitting. The commission disagrees. The employer's business by its nature involved travel to different job locations. This is not a situation where the employer had a factory in a particular location close to the employee's home, and then for reasons of its own decided to move to a location far from the employee's residence. The commission also notes the employee would have only been expected to make this commute for a few days and the job would end. Further, the commission considers the vehicle a temporary perk, more in the nature of a favor to the employee, and therefore its loss did not amount to good cause attributable to the employer for quitting.

cc: Attorney Ross R. Kinney

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

uploaded 2001/07/09