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


JOAN P CORDTS, Employe

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF SOLON SPRINGS, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 95201476SU


On September 21, 1995, the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations (department) issued an initial determination finding that the employe quit but not for any reason allowing payment of benefits. The employe timely appealed. On October 25, 1995, a hearing was held before an administrative law judge. On November 3, 1995, the administrative law judge issued his appeal tribunal decision, reversing the department's initial determination, finding that the employe quit with good cause attributable to the employer pursuant to section 108.04(7)(b), Stats. The employer timely petitioned the commission for review of the appeal tribunal decision.

Based on the applicable law, records and evidence in this case, the commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The employe worked approximately eight years as a secretary and computer operator for the employer, a school district. The employe's last day of work was May 30, 1995 (week 22), at which time she terminated her employment.

The employe quit for several reasons, including job related stress and an assortment of "irregularities" that occurred while working for the school district. The employe also quit believing that the school district placed improper demands upon her as a secretary for the school district. In early January of 1995, the school district administrator decided to relieve the district's bookkeeper of some responsibilities and place them with the employe. Despite this transfer of duties, the employe was still obligated to complete all of her secretarial duties. The employe complained to the school district administrator on several occasions, explaining she could not complete all of her work during her scheduled hours. The employe also complained to the principal. The employe requested overtime for the additional duties but the school administrator informed the employe that the policy was not to pay overtime. The employe testified that she could no longer physically perform her job as secretary/computer operator given the additional duties. The employe filed a grievance and a hearing with the school board was held on May 15, 1995. The employe resigned on May 16, 1995, effective may 30, 1995, following the hearing.

The employe also complained that the school principal failed to inform her when a student was no longer on school premises. As attendance clerk for the district, the employe had to keep track of a student's presence on campus. Many times, the principal or dean of students would send a student home or place them in a time-out room and fail to inform the employe. Accordingly to the employe, it is the district's policy to inform a parent if a student is no longer in the building. On numerous occasions the employe would contact a parent informing the parent that his or her child was no longer on campus, only to find out later the student was actually on campus. The employe complained to the principal and school district administrator on several occasions about this communication problem. This communication problem was never rectified before the employe quit.

The employe also believed that she was being singled out by the employer when she requested medical/dental leave on May 11. Upon her request, she received a letter indicating that medical proof would be required regarding her leave. The employe obtained the medical proof and left it with the school district administrator. The employe knew of no workers, in her eight years with the school district, who were required to give proof of a medical leave for a day. The union agreement indicates that management may require proof of a medical leave. The final reason leading to the employe's decision to quit involved her refusal to sign a membership record audit report. The employe complained that she was given insufficient time to review the material and refused to verify the audit.

The initial issue to be decided is whether the employe quit her employment or whether the employer discharged the employe. If the employe quit, it must then be determined whether the employe's quitting was for any reason which would permit benefit payment. If the employe was discharged, it must then be determined whether the discharge was for misconduct connected with her employment.

The employe cites a variety of reasons for quitting including a unilateral change in job duties and responsibilities, a deteriorating relationship between herself, the school district administrator and principal, job related stress caused by this deteriorating relationship and her refusal to sign an audit report. It is undisputed that the employe voluntarily terminated her employment, effective May 30, 1995.

Concluding that the employe quit, the next inquiry is whether the employe quit for any reason that would allow benefits. The most relevant exception that would allow payment of benefits is section 108.04(7)(b), Stats., which provides payment of benefits if an employe quits with "good cause attributable to the employing unit." The Supreme Court has defined "good cause attributable to an employer" to mean some act or omission that justifies the employe's decision to quit. It must involve some fault on the part of the employer and must be "real and substantial." Nottleson v. ILHR Department, 94 Wis. 2d 106, 120 (1980). The commission and the courts have also observed that the reason an employe quits must be one that justifies his or her decision to become unemployed rather than to continue working. Circuit Court decisions also provide authority for the proposition that when determining whether an employe had "good cause attributable," the commission must determine whether the employe's decision to quit was a reasonable reaction by the employe to some act on the part of the employer. Stetz v. DILHR, et al., Dane County Circuit Court, Case No. 136-215 (February 13, 1973).

Here, the employe established that her job responsibilities were unilaterally changed. She received no additional compensation for her additional duties and when she complained, on several occasions, her complaints went unanswered by the principal and school administrator. It is clear that the relationship between the employe and the employer deteriorated beyond repair. While it is not clear which party is more blameworthy, the employer failed to produce the necessary witnesses to refute the employe's testimony. The employe testified that the principal and the school district administrator made work unbearable especially due to the unilateral job duty change, causing her mental and physical stress. Although the employe filed a grievance over the unilateral job duty change, the grievance went unresolved prior to the employe's quitting. Without contrary evidence, the commission is persuaded that the unilateral job change led to the employe's decision to quit. Furthermore, the unilateral change in job duties provided the employe with good cause attributable to the employer for quitting. The employe was not relieved of any of her secretarial duties to perform this additional work and when she complained, her complaints went unanswered. Under the circumstances, the employe's response was a reasonable reaction to the unilateral change in job duties imposed by the employer. The employe therefore established that her quitting was with good cause attributable to the employer, pursuant to section 108.04(7), Stats., in week 22 of 1995.

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is modified, and as modified is affirmed. Accordingly, the employe is eligible for benefits as of week 22 of 1995, if she is otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed: June 5, 1996
cordtjo.urr : 135 : 1 VL 1005  VL 1080.268

/s/ Richard T. Kreul, Commissioner

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The commission's modifications reflect its conclusion that the employer's unilateral change in the employe's job duties provided her with good cause attributable to the employer for quitting within the meaning of section 108.04(7)(b), Stats. Because the commission reaches this conclusion, it need not address the issue of whether the employe was required, directed or suggested by the employer to violate the law.

In its petition for commission review, the employer requests further hearing based upon the administrative law judge's finding that the employe violated the law at the employer's request. This request is denied. Notwithstanding the fact that the commission modified the appeal tribunal decision in this regard, the commission considers the issue of whether further hearing is warranted. The department's initial investigation revealed that the employe offered numerous reasons for quitting, citing a deteriorating relationship between herself, the school administrator and the principal. The employer was on notice based upon this initial investigation as well as the notice of hearing that the testimony of the principal and the school district administrator would have been relevant to the separation issue. The employer therefore has failed to advance any compelling reason to grant further hearing and its request is denied.

cc:
ATTORNEY BRIAN H WRIGHT
WELD RILEY PRENN & RICCI SC


PAMELA I. ANDERSON, CHAIRMAN, (Dissenting):

I am unable to agree with the result reached by the majority herein and I dissent. I do not believe that the employe has shown good cause attributable to the employer to quit. The employe exaggerated the changes in her duties. Her own testimony varies from 15 additional hours a week because of the bookkeeping duties to 9 1/2 hours a day. Those statements work out to either 55 hours per week to 47 1/2 hours per week. It is clear from the record that she was angry at a number of people including the bookkeeper who she believed was causing her extra work because the co-worker had a tax service in her home.

The employer has a right to make work assignments. The employe had 16 years of experience as a head bookkeeper at the bank so she should have been qualified to do the work. The record does not indicate the previous experience of the other two secretaries in the district. The employe had a personal conflict with the district administrator and the principal. She believed they were trying to force her out but that is not apparent on the record. The district had two different people assigned to help at different times but there were problems.

I believe that the employe did not trust the district administrator or principal but her level of distrust do not appear to be based on actual experience. She insisted that students were attending school who should not have been admitted but there are exceptions to the rule that the parents must reside in the district. She was not willing to sign a report not only because she had not read it but also because everything was not on the same page.

I do not mean to imply that the school district was made up of saints but I believe the employe wasted a great deal of time on matters of little importance and even outside her duties. I do not believe that the employe was entitled to a finding of good cause attributable to the employer because the employer did not eliminate duties or increase her pay in response to her grievance. She could have filed a wage claim. She also could have waited to see what would happen the following year because she knew that the district administrator would not be back in the fall.
For these reasons, I would reverse and deny the employe benefits.

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Chairman


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