TERRY J ROBISON, Employee

CHER MAKE SAUSAGE COMPANY, 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.

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed.  Accordingly, the employee is ineligible for benefits beginning in week 44 of 2001, 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.

Dated and mailed May 16, 2002
robiste . usd : 105 : 8  VL 1007.05

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

/s/ Laurie R. McCallum, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The commission has affirmed the appeal tribunal decision in this case, for the following reasons.  First, the employee's inability to get to work legally constitutes a quit of employment under Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(a).  This is because a quit for unemployment insurance purposes includes conduct inconsistent with an intent to continue an employment relationship.  The employee's having engaged in conduct which led to the revocation of his probation and subsequent incarceration, was inconsistent with an intent to maintain employment.  It was so, because the employee reasonably could have expected that a revocation of his probation would lead to an inability to work and thus a loss of the employment.

The employee has argued the relevance of matters subsequent to his arrest on the probation hold, including a letter he sent to the employer and various communications by the employer.  All of these matters occurred after the employee engaged in the conduct which led to the revocation of his probation, however.  It was that conduct and the subsequent incarceration which caused the employment relationship to end;   for this reason, anything that happened thereafter is irrelevant to the case.  For these reasons, and for 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 2012/09/07