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

MARY P GRANT, Employee

CORNELL PUBLIC SCHOOL, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 01201311EC


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 makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The employee worked about 14 years as a business education teacher for the employer, a public school district. Her last day of work was May 25, 2001 (week 21), which was the last day of school for that school year.

In April of 2001, the employee was informed that for the 2001-2002 academic year her position would be a 50% position. Her salary would be reduced correspondingly, but her insurance benefits would remain at 100%. The employee's position was reduced because of budget constraints. The employee resigned her position July 26, 2001 (week 30). The employee was told that it was very difficult to obtain a position as a business education teacher and decided to return to school for retraining.

The issue to be decided is whether the employee voluntarily terminated her employment for any reason permitting immediate benefit payment.

Wisconsin Statute § 108.04(7)(b), provides for payment of benefits if an employee quits with "good cause attributable to the employing unit." The commission must determine whether the employee's decision to quit was a reasonable reaction by the employee to some act on the part of the employer. Stetz v. DILHR, et. al., No. 136-215 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Dane County Feb.13, 1973).

The commission finds that the employee voluntarily terminated her position with good cause attributable to the employer. The employee's quitting was a reasonable reaction to the reduction of her work hours. The employer decreased the employee's hours by 50%. The decease in hours was both substantial and a material change in the conditions of the employee's employment with the employer. While the employer had valid business reasons for decreasing the employee's hours of work, the employee acted reasonably in terminating her employment in response to such reduction.

The commission therefore finds that in week 30 of 2001 the employee terminated her work with the employer, with good cause attributable to the employer within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(b).

DECISION

The appeal tribunal decision is reversed. Accordingly, the employee is eligible for benefits beginning in week 30 of 2001, if she is otherwise qualified. There is no overpayment with respect to this issue.

Dated and mailed March 7, 2002
grantma . urr : 132 : 8 : VL 1059.204 VL 1080.269

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

/s/ Laurie R. McCallum, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The commission did not discuss witness credibility with the ALJ. The commission's reversal is not based on a differing opinion as to credibility. The commission disagrees with the ALJ's conclusion that a 50% decrease in hours, which of course involves a concomitant 50% decrease in income, did not give the employee good cause attributable to the employer for quitting. The employer had valid business reasons for its actions, but that does not change the adverse economic consequences on the employee. The fact that the employee need not commute as often to the workplace does not make up for such a drastic decrease in income.

The employer argues the employee could have stayed employed and applied for partial UI benefits. However, the commission does not consider it reasonable to expect the employee to maintain employment and seek partial benefits where, as here, the reduction in hours is substantial and there is no indication that it is a definite short-term decrease. The reduction in hours was going to last, at a minimum, the entire school year.

The employer also argues that since the employee was performing the same work she always performed, albeit on a part-time basis, she was not offered "new work." The employer cites Allen-Bradley Co. v. ILHR Department, 58 Wis.2d 1 (1973), to support this assertion. The court in Allen-Bradley did state that a change in shift was not "new work" under the labor standards provision. The court found that the reference to "hours of work" in the labor standard provision applied only to the number of, and not the arrangement of, hours. Of course, this case involves a change in the number of hours, not in the arrangement of hours.

The commission has resolved this case under the good cause exception to the quit disqualification. The commission agrees with the Department, however, that such a change in a condition of the employee's employment should have been analyzed under the labor standards provision in Wis. Stat. § 108.04(9)(b) and labor market information introduced into the record. Because the commission's decision allows benefits, the commission does not remand the matter for further hearing on whether the number of hours the employee was offered was prevailing for similar work in her labor market.

Finally, the commission notes that a separate determination, not before the commission, found that the employee was a student enrolled in a course that qualifies as approved training. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 108.04(16)(a), the employee is not required to be able to work or available for work while in approved training. Again, that determination is not before the commission and the commission has no basis for concluding that the determination is erroneous in any respect.

cc: Attorney James M. Ward


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


uploaded 2002/03/11