STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION

In the matter of the unemployment benefit claim of

CINDY J KAESERMANN, Employee

Involving the account of

YELLOW FREIGHT SYSTEM INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 94606887MW


Pursuant to the timely petition for review filed in the above-captioned matter, the commission has considered the petition and all relief requested. The commission has reviewed the applicable records and evidence and finds that the appeal tribunal's findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported thereby. The commission therefore adopts the findings and conclusions of the appeal tribunal as its own.

DECISION

The decision of the appeal tribunal is affirmed. Accordingly, the employe is ineligible for benefits in weeks 17 and 18 of 1994, based on wages paid for employment prior to the commencement of the dispute while such strike or bona fide labor dispute, other than a lockout, is in active progress.

Dated and mailed December 16, 1994
132 : 6251  LD 580

Pamela I. Anderson, Chairman

/s/ Richard T. Kreul, Commissioner

/s/ James R. Meier, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The employe has petitioned for commission review of the adverse appeal tribunal decision which found that she was disqualified for unemployment benefits under sec. 108.04 (10), Stats., because she lost her work with the employer due to a strike. In the petition for review, the employe notes that two employes were laid off for the strike and two were allowed to remain. The employe further notes that the administrative law judge only concentrated on her duties which related to working with union employes. The employe notes that she has many other duties that she performs in connection to her job. However, whether the employe has other duties which are unrelated to duties performed for the union employes is not at issue. Rather, the issue is whether the employe lost her job because of the strike by union employes. The employe testified that she was unable to perform her normal duties because the union drivers were not there and there was no other reason for her unemployment other than the strike. As noted by the administrative law judge, the supreme court has previously determined that individuals who lose their jobs due to a strike are ineligible for benefits although those individuals did not themselves participate in the strike. See Cook v. Ind. Comm., 31 Wis. 2d 232 (1965).

The employe further states in her petition that she did not have a choice in the layoff procedure and was an unfortunate victim of a situation she neither created nor could control. The commission does not disagree with the employe's statements. However, the fact remains that under the unemployment compensation law as it has been interpreted for the past 30 years, the employe is not eligible for benefits as long as her job was lost due to the effects of a strike in her employer's establishment. For the above reasons, and reasons set forth in the appeal tribunal decision, the commission affirms that decision..

 


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


uploaded 2006/02/14