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

JOLENE M PAULEY, Employee

RONS PLACE, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 01605067RC


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.

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee is eligible for benefits, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed October 10, 2001
paulejo . usd : 105 : 1  VL 1005.01  VL 1080.02 

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The employer asserts in the petition for review that the administrative law judge did not give due weight to documents suggesting that employees must work 30 hours per week in order to be eligible for the insurance in question. The employer's documentation includes reference to Wis. Stat. § 632.745(5)(a); that provision specifically states only that the normal work week be 30 or more hours. In the employee's last several weeks of employment, the record indicates that she averaged 29 hours and 48 minutes per week. This appears to satisfy the statutory requirement. Further, an insurance representative who testified on the employer's behalf indicated that, with regard to the employee's policy in effect as of January of 2001, the employee had to work on average only 20 or more hours per week. Thus, the record indicates no valid reason for the employer's unilateral decision to cease contributing toward the employee's health insurance premium. Absent a valid reason for such, though, the employee's quit in response thereto was for good cause.

For these reasons, and those stated in the appeal tribunal decision, the commission has affirmed that decision.

 


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


uploaded 2001/10/12