LOIS J TRONGARD, Employee
MERTON VETERINARY CLINIC INC, Employer
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.
The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee is eligible for benefits in week 4 of 2006, if otherwise qualified.
Dated and mailed November 2, 2006
tronglo . usd : 115 : 1 UW 975 UW 940
James T. Flynn, Chairman
/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner
/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner
In order to qualify for benefits, an individual must be unemployed. Wis. Stat. § 108.03. An employee is totally unemployed in any week for which he or she earns no wages. Wis. Stat. § 108.02(25). An individual is partially unemployed in any week for which he or she earns some wages, and the amount of these wages meets certain requirements. Wis. Stat. § § 108.02(20) and 108.05(3).
Wages, according to Wis. Stat. § 108.02(26), and as relevant here, means every form of remuneration payable, directly or indirectly, by an employing unit to an individual for personal services, and includes payment in kind.
The evidence of record does not show that the claimant earned any wages in week 4 of 2006, the week in issue. Although Merton argues that the claimant was performing services for another veterinary clinic that week, it is only services performed for wages that would be disqualifying. The claimant testified that she performed services for this other veterinary clinic as a volunteer, this testimony was corroborated by one of the owners of the other clinic and by the clinic's payroll records (1), and Merton failed to successfully rebut this evidence.
Merton points to the presence of the claimant's name on the other veterinary clinic's staff roster as evidence that she was working as their employee during the relevant time period. However, businesses frequently use volunteers to perform certain services, and it would not be surprising if they listed the names and contact information for these volunteers on their staff rosters. The mere presence of the claimant's name on the other clinic's staff roster is not evidence that she was earning wages for the services she was performing for them.
Although the employee received certain payment in kind from the other clinic, i.e., a reduced charge for cleaning her dog's teeth, this occurred after the time period in issue.
The claimant also received certain computer training from the other clinic. Even if this would qualify as wages, this training was not provided during the week in issue, but instead in the fall of 2005.
cc: Attorney Thomas C. Simon
[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]