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

ANTHONY B SQUIRES, Employee

BADGER TECHNICAL SERVICES INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 01606185MW


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 30, 2001
squiran . usd : 145 : 1  VL 1025 

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In its petition for commission review the employer asserts that the employee had to quit work for the employer in order to take a job with the client. The employer therefore feels that benefits should have been paid by the fund or come out of the client's account. Normally, when a worker leaves one job to take another he would be considered to have quit. However, this situation is more complex as the employer is a temporary help employer and assigned the employee to this client. The commission then looks at whether or not the employee had a choice to continue in the temporary help employment and whether the employee had been informed that he or she had such a choice. In Kempf v. Flex Staff Temporary Services (Commission Decision August 1, 1997), the commission found that the "employe testified that she did not really have a choice in the matter as to the date of employment with Briess Industries or whether she could stay with Flex Staff. It was the employee's understanding that at some point she would be hired by Briess Industries permanently. Further, the employer affirmatively stated in this case that the employee did not have the option of continuing to work for it. Without such a choice, the employee cannot make a voluntary decision to quit one employment in favor of another."

This case is similar to Kempf in that the employee was not given a choice in the matter. He was simply hired by the client. The employer never told the employee at the time or hire or anytime thereafter that he could remain with the employer even if offered a permanent position by the client. The employer never indicated that it would have been able or willing to give the employee an assignment with a different client. Therefore the employee did not quit his employment when the client changed his status to that of a regular employee.

 


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


uploaded 2001/11/05