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

KATRINA WILDER, Employee

STAFF UP AMERICA, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 04608251MW


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 makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The employee worked in one assignment for the employer, a temporary staffing agency. Her last day of work was June 15, 2004 (week 25).

The issue is whether the separation was a quit or a discharge, and whether it occurred under circumstances which would permit the payment of benefits.

The employee's single assignment, as a retail clerk, lasted eight days. On June 15, 2004, the employer notified her that the assignment would end that day, and that she should report to the employer's offices the next day to receive another assignment. The employee did not contact the employer until several weeks later.

In a document signed by the employee as a part of her employment application (exhibit #1), the employee acknowledges the following, in pertinent part:

. . . I also understand that Staff Up America is under no obligation to notify me of the various work assignments available. I must report to the Staff Up America office each day in order to be sent on a work assignment.

I have further been notified that there are generally work assignments available to me if, in fact, I show up to the Staff Up America office on time and ready to work.

The employee did not appear at the hearing.

An employee of a temporary help agency who is aware of her responsibility to contact the employer for further assignments, as here, is considered to have quit her employment when she fails to do so. See, Luling v. Adecco North America, LLC, UI Hearing No. 01604568WK (LIRC Sept. 5, 2001), aff'd sub nom., Luling v. Adecco and LIRC, Case No. 01CV2341 (Waukesha Co. Cir. Ct., May 10, 2002) (employee had reason to be aware, after her assignment ended because of improper use of the client's computer system, that she needed to contact the employer for further assignments, and her failure to do so constituted a quit); Turnbull v. Adecco USA, Inc., UI Hearing No. 03003316MD (LIRC Dec. 12, 2003)(it was the employee's practice as well as his responsibility to contact the employer after his assignment ended and his failure to do so renders the separation a quit).

There is no basis in the record upon which to conclude that any exception to the quit disqualification would apply.

The commission therefore concludes that, in week 25 of 2004, the employee quit her employment with the employer, but not with good cause attributable thereto or for any other reason constituting an exception to the quit disqualification of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(a).

The commission further finds that there was no overpayment within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.03(1), because no benefits have been paid to the employee based on the subject claim.


DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is reversed. Accordingly, the employee is ineligible for benefits beginning in week 25 of 2004 and until four weeks have elapsed since the end of the week of quitting and she has earned wages in covered employment performed after the week of quitting equaling at least four times her weekly benefit rate which would have been paid had the quitting not occurred.

Dated and mailed November 30, 2004
wildeka . urr : 115 : 1  VL 1007.01 VL 1025

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

 

NOTE: The commission did not confer with the administrative law judge before reversing his decision, because its reversal was not based upon a differing view as to the credibility of witnesses, but instead upon a differing interpretation of the relevant law.



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


uploaded 2004/12/06