JOANNE S HANSEN, Employee

GREAT LAKES WATER 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 makes the following:

The employee worked as a secretary for the employer, a water purification business, for over seven years. Her last day of work was October 25, 2006.

The employee testified that she quit her job with the employer for a variety of reasons. The employee testified that on her last day of work, she telephoned two governmental agencies. Acting on reports that the employer had not paid unemployment insurance contributions based on her earnings nor had the employer paid mandatory withholding to the federal government based on her earnings, she left the premises, and submitted her resignation on October 28, 2006 (week 43).

The employee at the hearing testified that she quit her employment because of the aforementioned tax issues, together with the fact that the employer failed to reasonably accommodate a vision problem she developed, and issued her payroll checks which were dishonored by financial institutions due to insufficient funds in the employer's account. In addition, the employee alleged that her immediate supervisor had made an inappropriate remark when attending the employee's mother's funeral in August of 2006, and that her immediate supervisor, a female, had urinated into a plastic can in front of the employee on occasions while discussions were being held.

The employee failed to establish that the employer did not reasonably accommodate the employee's vision problems in the circumstances present in this case. The employee failed to establish that her supervisor urinated in a plastic can during discussion they were having.

The employee did establish that the employer failed to ensure that there were sufficient funds in its account to cover her payroll checks on occasion. The employee's check for September 27, 2006, bounced. The employer explained that she issued a check with insufficient funds in the account because she was expecting payment from another company and this did not come through. The employer indicated she often paid things on line and did not know when those payments would be deducted from the employer's account. However, the employer knew when it wrote the check that there was insufficient money in the account to cover it, but was hoping that when the check was cashed, there would be additional funds in the account. Likewise, the employer was responsible for having sufficient funds in its account to cover all purchases, regardless of when the checks clear or the funds were electronically deducted from its account. During 2006, the employer paid the employee a few other checks that were not honored by the bank. The employee did not need to inform the employer that she was quitting because of these checks because the employer was aware that her checks were bouncing as it would pay her bank charges. While the employer did pay those charges, the fact that the employee's checks bounced might have an impact on her creditworthiness and certainly would have caused inconvenience, and possibly embarrassment to her. The employer admitted it failed to file quarterly unemployment insurance reports because of personal problems. While the employer was aware these tasks were not being completed, the employer made no effort to transfer these responsibilities to anyone else or to at least seek assistance with these tasks. Since the employer was aware it was not filing required reports, it was not necessary for the employee to bring this matter to the employer's attention prior to quitting

The employer is responsible for ensuring that the employee is paid in a timely manner, and to ensure that there are sufficient funds in its account to cover payroll checks. The employer is also responsible for submitting required reports pertaining to the employee's employment to the appropriate government agencies. The employer's failure to meet this fundamental responsibility was so egregious that the employee's quitting amounted to good cause attributable to the employer.

The commission therefore finds that in week 43 of 2006, the employee quit her work with good cause attributable to the employer, within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(b).

The decision of the administrative law judge is reversed. Accordingly, the employee is eligible for benefits beginning in week 43 of 2006, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed March 7, 2007
hansejo . urr : 145 : 1 VL 1005.01  VL 1059.07

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

The commission did not discuss witness credibility and demeanor with the ALJ prior to reversing his decision. The commission agreed that certain of the employee's allegations were not established. The commission however, determined that certain actions on the part of the employer amounted to good cause attributable to the employer for quitting.

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

uploaded 2007/03/12