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

ANDRE D THOMPSON, Employee

CORNWELL PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES LTD, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 04602284MW


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.

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee is eligible for benefits during week 4 of 2003 of $75, if otherwise qualified. The employee is required to repay the sum of $3 to the Unemployment Reserve Fund.

Dated and mailed August 4, 2004
thompan . usd : 105 : 2   VL 1015.01  VL 1025

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The employer argues in its petition for review that its binding contract of hire provides that refusal of an assignment essentially constitutes a voluntary termination of employment by the employee. Private contracts between the parties, however, obviously cannot override the unemployment insurance law. That law provides that, where an employee has not expressly indicated he or she is quitting the employment, a voluntary quit will be found when the employee engages in conduct inconsistent with the continuation of the employment relationship. The employee cannot be said to have engaged in such conduct in this case. He did not refuse the assignment out of any intention to quit the employment; rather, he refused it only because he did not have transportation to get to it. Refusal of an assignment because one has no way of getting to it is in no way inconsistent with the continuation of the employment relationship.

For these reasons, and for those stated in the appeal tribunal decision, the commission has affirmed that decision.



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


uploaded 2005/02/07