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

THOMAS J. HOLMES, Employee

ROUNDYS INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 94608350MW


An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Unemployment Compensation Division of the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations 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 employe is eligible for benefits in week 44 of 1994, if he is otherwise qualified. As a result of adjustments of payments for such week and subsequent weeks, no overpayment results.

Dated and mailed July 21, 1995
holmeth . usd : 132 : 6  AA 110

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Chairman

/s/ Richard T. Kreul, Commissioner

/s/ James R. Meier, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The employer has petitioned for commission review of the adverse appeal tribunal decision which found that the employe did not receive due notice of work actually available. In the petition for review, the employer maintains that it did have work actually available to the employe. However, while the employer had work available in general, it did not have work available for all 57 casual workers had those casual workers called in. Where, as here, an employer has a pool of workers and work that is insufficient to employ all workers in that pool, work is not actually available to all workers in the pool nor to any particular employe. In addition, the employer testified that if there was more work then anticipated, the employer could contact individuals to offer the available work. In that instance, the employer would have provided due notice of work actually available, because the work was actually offered to a particular worker. Finally, to the extent the employer raises issues relating to the employe's actions in December of 1994, such issues are not before the commission. The only issue noticed for hearing, and properly before the commission, is whether in week 44 of 1994 the employe received due notice of work available. Evidence establishes that the employe did not in fact have due notice of work actually available.

For the above reasons, and reasons set forth in the administrative law judge's decision, the commission affirms that decision.

cc: 
Attorney Laurie A. Peterson
Lindner & Marsack SC

Roundys Inc

Continental Invest & Sec Ltd


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


uploaded 2004/01/13