ALLEN F HOFER, Employee
BURBACH AQUATICS LLC, 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 51 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. The employee is required to repay the sum of $2,421 to the Unemployment Reserve Fund.
Dated and mailed May 24, 2002
hoferal . usd : 105 : 1 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, because it agrees with the administrative law
judge's conclusion of quit. There is no dispute as to the employer's
having purported to discharge the employee. Nonetheless, a quit for
unemployment insurance purposes includes conduct by an employee inconsistent
with an intent to maintain the employment relationship. The commission
believes the employee engaged in such conduct. First, the commission does
not credit the employee's denials of wrongdoing with regard to his
incarceration. The employee had to know that that would have a significant
adverse impact upon his ability to perform services for the employer.
Second, the employee failed to directly contact the employer during his period
of incarceration. Again, the commission cannot credit his explanation that
he was unable to do so. These failures by the employee were conduct
inconsistent with an intent to maintain the employment relationship, however,
and as such a quit under Wis. Stat. ยง 108.04(7)(a). 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