BEFORE THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION

MARK J. SCHMIDT, Employee

C & D ERECTING, INC., Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 89-600891 MW


Pursuant to the timely petition for review and request for further hearing filed in the above-captioned matter, the Commission has considered the petition and all relief requested. The Commission has reviewed the applicable records and evidence and finds that the Appeal Tribunal's findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported thereby. Accordingly, the Commission adopts and affirms the findings and conclusions of the Appeal Tribunal as its own. The Commission also determines that further hearing is not warranted.

DECISION

The employe's request for further hearing is denied and the decision of the Appeal Tribunal is affirmed. Accordingly, the employe is ineligible for benefits beginning in week 47 of 1988, and until he has again worked within at least seven weeks in covered employment and has earned wages for work actually performed in covered employment equaling at least 14 times his weekly benefit rate with the employing unit against whom benefits would otherwise be chargeable. If he requalifies at a later date, his remaining benefits based on work by this employing unit shall be reduced by 50 percent but not below one week's benefits.

Dated and mailed April 20, 1989
110 - CD1010  VL 1007.01

/s/ Hugh C. Henderson, Chairman

/s/ Carl W. Thompson, Commissioner

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In his petition for review, the employe asserts that he discovered "new evidence" after the hearing that the employer had not arranged for two separate gates to be used during the time that informational picketing was going on (one for the picketed subcontractor, and one for all other persons). However, the employe has not asserted that there was any reason that he could have not discovered this evidence prior to the hearing. In any event, this evidence would have made no difference to the outcome of the case. There was no claim made that the employe could not have crossed an informational picket line directed at another subcontractor.

The employe also asserts that he believed that he was laid off when the employer failed to contact him, a day after he first refused to work, to tell him that a second gate had been set up so that he would be able to come to work without crossing a picket line. Even disregarding the fact that the employe had initiated the separation of his employment on the previous day by refusing to go to work, such a failure on the part of the employer to contact the employe would not reasonably have justified the employe in concluding that his employment had been terminated. Before abandoning employment on the supposition that his or her employment has been terminated, an employe has the responsibility to make inquiries of the employer to determine if this is so where there has been no clear indication on the part of the employer that the employment relationship is being severed.

 


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


uploaded 2003/04/25