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

MATTHEW D AMATO, Employee

TANDEM TRANSPORT INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 06004193MD


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 ineligible for benefits in weeks 39 through 41 of 2006.

Dated and mailed March 19, 2007
amatoma . usd : 178 : 1   AA 126

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In his petition for commission review, the employee argues that the assignment offered to him involved a completely different way of life than his usual work for the employer. He argues that he should be eligible for benefits despite turning down the work.

The issue is whether this short term change in duties constituted an offer of new work. The commission has consistently held that short term changes in the conditions of employment do not constitute new work. In Slennes v. Ceda Inc, UI Dec. Hearing No. 0201429EC (LIRC Feb. 9, 2001), a case which was factually very similar to the present case, the employee was offered an out-of-town assignment that was to last for up to two weeks. The commission held "[t]his would involve a change of a condition of employment but it was a temporary change. The department's policy is that changes in conditions of work of relatively short duration, defined as one month or less, to provide help in temporary or emergency situations, do not fall within the definition of "new work." See Bureau of Benefits Manual, Vol. 3, Part 7 Ch. 1, p. 87.

In other cases, the commission has also held that changes based on valid business reasons that last less than 30 days do not materially alter the employment relationship so as to justify finding a quit with good cause attributable to the employer. See Zurawski v. A & E Mfg Co., UI Dec. Hearing No. 96602067 (LIRC May 6, 1997). The commission's reasoning has been upheld at the circuit court level in Jean M. Nayes v. LIRC, Manitowoc County Cir. Ct., Case No. 93-CV-373, August 4, 1994.

In this case, the employee made a valid personal decision not to accept three weeks of work. However his stated reason, childcare, is a personal circumstance which does not constitute good cause. Since the employee had the option of remaining employed throughout the leave, this amounts to a voluntary period of unemployment. Therefore, the commission affirms the appeal tribunal decision that the employee is ineligible during this definite leave of absence.



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


uploaded 2007/03/26