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

KARLA E HUPF, Employee

WEYCO GROUP INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 02003161FL


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 eligible for benefits, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed January 22, 2003
hupfka . usd : 115 : 8   VL 1035

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The employee was on temporary layoff and facing permanent layoff due to a business slowdown when she was offered a transfer to another employing unit by the employer. The employee and her union representative brought certain concerns relating to the timing and equities of this transfer to the employer's attention, i.e., that an employee from a different department (Michael) had been brought in to work in the department from which the employee was to be laid off due to lack of work; and certain other employees had been transferred at their previous rate of pay but the employee's offer involved a pay reduction. At the meeting convened to discuss these concerns, the union representative stated, "It is the union's position that the employee shouldn't be forced to transfer as long as there are less senior workers in that plant." The employer then withdrew the offer of transfer and the employee was permanently laid off two weeks later.

The employer argues that the union "prohibited" the employer from transferring the employee in lieu of layoff, this action should be interpreted as a failure by the employee to accept the subject transfer offer, and, as a result, the employee should be regarded as having quit her employment with no qualifying exceptions that would permit the payment of benefits.

However, the concerns raised by the employee and her union representative bore directly on the timing of her impending layoff and the equities of the transfer deal she had been offered. The union had an obligation to raise these concerns on the employee's behalf, and for the employer to characterize the union's exploration of these concerns as its prohibition of the transfer is inapposite. The separation should be regarded as a discharge (layoff), and nothing in the employee's conduct has been characterized by the employer as misconduct or should be regarded as such.

cc: 
Attorney Timothy M. Curran
William Roberts, Business Rep.


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


uploaded 2003/01/31