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

JO ANN R RAMSFIELD, Employee

COMMUNITY ACTION COALITION FOR
SOUTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 05003922MD


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:

In the third paragraph under the administrative law judge's FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, delete "July 28, 2004" and insert therefor "July 28, 2005."

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge, as modified, is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee is ineligible for benefits beginning in week 43 of 2004, and until four weeks have elapsed since the end of the week of quitting and the employee has earned wages in covered employment performed after the week of quitting equaling
at least four times the employee's weekly benefit rate which would have been paid had the quitting not occurred.

Dated and mailed January 12, 2006
ramsfjo . umd : 132 : 1  VL 1005.01

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The employee has petitioned for commission review of the adverse appeal tribunal decision that found she voluntarily terminated her employment and not for any reason permitting the immediate payment of unemployment insurance benefits. The commission has reviewed the record and agrees with the ALJ's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

The commission has repeatedly found that where an employee believes that she has been subjected to unfair criticism or treatment, the employee must establish that she explored alternatives short of quitting before it can be found that the quitting was with good cause attributable to the employer. The employee must give the employer an opportunity to address and resolve matters that the employee finds so serious that she is considering terminating her employment over them. See e.g., Roth v. LIRC & Wisconsin Youth Co. Inc., No. 02-CV-00409 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Milwaukee Co. Aug. 5, 2002); Collier v. Rubbermaid & Co., UI Dec. Hearing No. 99604071RC (Oct. 14, 1999); Lauer v. Bratley d/b/a Kentucky Fried Chicken & LIRC, No. 97-CV-405 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Douglas County July 20, 1998); Bowe v. U.W. Parkside, UC Dec. Hearing No. 97201101EC (LIRC Nov. 25, 1997); Gilkay v. Servicemaster of Stevens Point, UC Hearing Dec. No. 95002242WR (LIRC Sep. 28, 1995). If the employee notifies the employer of such concerns, and the employer fails to take reasonable and necessary steps to address the employee's concerns, good cause attributable to the employer will be found. See e.g, Opportunities Industrialization Center of Greater Milwaukee Inc., v. Barbara Dates & LIRC, No. 00-CV-7743 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Milwaukee Co. Mar. 20, 2001); Lichtfuss v. Bemis Specialty Films, UI Dec. Hearing No. 98402102AP (LIRC July 30, 1999).

The employee testified her hours were changed from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. However, when she raised this issue with her supervisor she was allowed to change her hours in order to attend appointments. This demonstrates that the employee could bring such concerns to the employer's attention and that the employer was willing to act on the employee's concerns.

The employee did not present any medical evidence at the hearing that she was unable to continue in her work for the employer. The employee's opportunity to present such evidence was at the hearing that has already been held. Further, to be eligible for benefits under Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(c), an employee must exhaust reasonable alternatives to quitting. One such reasonable alternative would have been to alert the employer that she was feeling stress related to her work, or that accommodations that had been made were insufficient to provide her with a safe work environment, to allow the employer to address such concerns.

The employee requests further hearing to allow her to introduce a written statement that the ALJ would not accept into the record. The employee states that she will establish that she quit because she was denied a cost of living adjustment and an incentive bonus in December of 2003. However, even if she had quit over such issues, the events were too remote in time from her quitting to provide the employee with good cause attributable to the employer. Further, as with the other issues, the employee did not alert the employer that she was contemplating quitting because of her failure to receive COLA and a bonus 11 months earlier. For these reasons, the commission declines to order further hearing in this matter.

When an employer discharges an employee, one factor the commission often considers is whether the employer has alerted the employee of perceived deficiencies and notified the employee that his or her employment is in jeopardy because of such deficiencies. Likewise, when an employee quits, the commission often, as it has in this case, considers whether the employee has provided the employer with notice of her concerns, and allowed the employer the opportunity to address those concerns knowing that the employee is contemplating terminating the employment relationship because of such concerns.

cc: Attorney Nicholas E. Fairweather


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


uploaded 2006/01/13