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

TYRONE L BATES, Employee

PERSONNEL WORLD, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 06602381MW


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, if otherwise qualified. There is no resulting overpayment.

Dated and mailed November 17, 2006
batesty . usd : 178 : 1  SW 844

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

David B. Falstad, Commissioner

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In its petition for commission review, the employer objects to the Conditions of Employment Database (COED) report used by the ALJ. It states that for job offers prior to June 1, 2006, it is inaccurate. The commission concedes that it may include some inflated wage data. However, it is the best available information in the record.

The COED report used by the adjudicator showed a wage range from $5.15 to 12.93 for similar work and that the bottom quartile earned less than $5.54 per hour. The ALJ correctly points out that in February, 2006; the Wisconsin minimum wage was $5.70 per hour. It was increased to that level in June 2005. Therefore a wage below that cannot be prevailing. The ALJ had a second report generated in June 2006 which showed a range of $6.50 to $17.07 with a bottom quartile cut off at $7.92. The ALJ accepted the second COED report and found the offer to be substantially less favorable. Therefore, the employee had good cause not to accept the recall.

The employer points out that the second COED report was created after the minimum wage had risen to $6.50 and therefore argues that it was not accurate. It cites old cases prior to the wage hike in June, 2005 which showed the minimum at $5.15, in which it apparently prevailed. However, since those cases are prior to 2005, they are not relevant. The commission is left with the June, 2006 COED report in the record. There is no dispute that the wage offered to the employee would be at the lower end of the range. The commission is accepts the conclusion that it was substantially less favorable to the employee than similar work in his labor market.



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


uploaded 2006/11/20