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

NANCY M BISTERFELDT, Employee

PINE ACRE MOTEL, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 01403322GB


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 ineligible for benefits beginning in week 16 of 2000, but has requalified for benefit eligibility as of week 22 of 2000 because 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. Benefits are payable to the employee beginning in week 22 of 2000, if the employee is otherwise qualified. The employee is required to repay the sum of $952.00 to the Unemployment Reserve Fund.

Dated and mailed February 11, 2002
bistena . usd : 135 : 8  VL 1039.09

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

Laurie R. McCallum, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In her petition for commission review, the employee inquires why section 108.04(7)(k) does not permit the payment of unemployment benefits in her case because she testified that it was economically unfeasible to keep her part-time job as a result of her two week layoff from her full-time employer. However, the employee testified that she quit her part-time employment because the employer failed to give her more hours per week than she expected or wanted not because it was economically unfeasible to keep her part-time employment. The ALJ therefore correctly held that Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(k) was inapplicable to the facts at hand.

Finally, the employee raises concern with the assessed overpayment. The employee explains that the question of eligibility had been resolved in April of 2000, and that in her phone interview she answered all questions truthfully and accurately as possible. However, departmental records show that UI benefits were paid because the department did not have full information concerning the employee's separation from her part-time employment in week 16 of 2000. The overpayment therefore was not caused by any departmental error and repayment of the benefits cannot be waived.

 


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


uploaded 2002/02/18