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


THERESA CAMPBELL, Employe

MASTER DIVISION, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION DECISION
Hearing No. 97004714MD


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, except that it makes the following modifications:

At the end of line one of paragraph one of the appeal tribunal's findings of fact and conclusions of law, "and as an order desk clerk" is added.

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge, as modified, is affirmed. Accordingly, the employe is ineligible for benefits beginning in week 36 of 1997, and until four weeks have elapsed since the end of the week of quitting and has earned wages in covered employment performed after the week of quitting equaling at least four times the employe's weekly benefit rate which would have been paid had the quitting not occurred.

Dated and mailed: January 2, 1998
campbth.umd : 105 : 7 VL 1005

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Chairman

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The commission has modified the appeal tribunal decision to reflect the employe's two positions during her employment with the employer. Affirmance otherwise is in order, for the following reasons. The employe asserts in her petition that she understood it was allowable to terminate employment for purposes of job stability or advancement. That is not the case, however. Chapter 108 imposes a penalty upon quits of employment which do not meet one of the exceptions to the quit disqualification. The only potentially relevant exception in the employe's case is the so-called "quit with good cause attributable to the employer" exception. The employe has argued that certain racially discriminatory remarks were directed at her but, as the administrative law judge noted, the employe not only did not complain about the alleged remarks, she also did not mention them when she quit her employment. Absent outrageous conduct which is not present here, though, before an employe will be found to have good cause for quitting employment the employe must bring to the employer's attention the reasons for the employe's anticipated quit. This is to allow the employer opportunity to correct the situation. The employe in this case did not do so, so her quit does not fall within the "good cause attributable to the employer" exception.

The employe also discusses in her petition for review problems she had in her employment with a subsequent employer. This matter does not pertain to the issue before the commission, though, whether the employe's quit of employment with Metz Baking Company was for a reason allowing immediate eligibility for unemployment benefits. For these reasons, and those stated in appeal tribunal decision, the commission has affirmed that decision.

cc: METZ BAKING CO


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