BEFORE THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION

JUDITH L. BADALAMENTI, Employee

DODGE-IN TAVERN, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 89-400406 MR


Pursuant to the timely petition for review 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. The Commission therefore adopts the findings and conclusions of the Appeal Tribunal as its own.

DECISION

The decision of the Appeal Tribunal is affirmed. Accordingly, the employe is ineligible for benefits beginning in week 3 of 1989, and until she has again worked within at least 7 weeks in covered employment and has earned wages for work actually performed in covered employment equaling at least 14 times her weekly benefit rate with the employing unit against whom benefits would otherwise be chargeable. If she requalifies at a later date, her remaining benefits based on work by this employing unit shall be reduced by 50 percent but not below 1 week's benefits. She is required to repay the sum of $343.00 to the Unemployment Reserve Fund. The initial Benefit Computation (Form UCB700), issued on January 28, 1989, is set aside.

Dated and mailed May 5, 1989
110 - CD6047  VL 1007.01

/s/ Hugh C. Henderson, Chairman

/s/ Carl W. Thompson, Commissioner

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Although the employe had been told on January 12, 1989 that she would be removed from the schedule on Fridays, she could still have anticipated working her regularly scheduled Tuesdays and Thursdays. When she discovered on the following Tuesday that her name had been taken off the schedule for that day, there was no other indication that she had been terminated. Her removal from the schedule on Fridays related to her performance as a hostess, and this would not necessarily have suggested any dissatisfaction with her performance as a cook on the other scheduled days. She would have had no reason to conclude that her removal from the schedule on Tuesday January 17, 1989 necessarily meant that she was terminated. Indeed, the fact that the employe went into the restaurant to try to clarify the situation with the owner establishes that there was no clear indication that she had been terminated. The Administrative Law Judge correctly concluded that the employe failed to take adequate steps to clarify her status before giving up and considering her employment terminated. It is therefore appropriate to conclude that she voluntarily terminated her employment. The Commission is satisfied that the employe failed to prove, by competent evidence, that she had any good cause for her voluntary termination of employment.

 


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


uploaded 2003/04/25