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

DARLENE M GEYER, Employee

COUNTY OF DOUGLAS, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 02200459EC


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 3 of 2002, 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 August 7, 2002
geyerda . usd : 132 : 1  VL 1075 

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

/s/ Laurie R. McCallum, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The employee has petitioned for commission review of the adverse appeal tribunal decision that found the employee voluntarily terminated her employment but not for any reason permitting immediate benefit payment. The employee is correct that a unilateral change in job duties may provide the employee with good cause attributable to the employer for quitting. Cordts v. School District of Solon Springs, UI Hearing Dec. No. 95201476SU (LIRC Jun. 5, 1996). Depending on the facts of a particular case, even a unilateral change in job duties may not provide the employee with good cause for quitting. Wilhelm v. LIRC, No. 00-CV-48 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Shawano County Aug. 23, 2000).

In the present case, the employer sought to temporarily alter the employee's job duties due to workload demands. The employer had a reasonable basis for making the change in the first instance. The commission agrees with the ALJ that the myriad of reasons the employee offered for refusing that temporary assignment did not provide her with good cause attributable to the employer for quitting.

The vast majority of the employee's concerns were hypothetical. The employee envisioned a number of potential problems that might result from the change. The employee refused the assignment and therefore could not establish that her fears would have been realized or that the employer would have been unresponsive to actual, rather than potential, problems that arose following the change. The employee did not establish that the temporary change in work duties would have caused actual hostility from co-workers, increased work load, conflicts due to assisting; victims and defenders, inability to learn the operation of the phone system, or insurmountable problems relating to adjusting the height of the receptionist's workstation. The employee did not establish that the change was in violation of any law. The employer testified that it had arranged to change the reporting of hours to ensure that the employer would not be seeking reimbursement from the state for work performed by the employee as a receptionist. There is no indication that had the employee began performing the temporary assignment and found that she was unable to provide all of the rights specified under Wis. Stat. ch. 950, the employer would not have been responsive to such concerns.

For the above reasons, and for the reasons set forth in the appeal tribunal decision, the commission affirms that decision

cc: Attorney Lisa D. Wilson


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


uploaded 2002/09/03