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

ANGIE SEPEDA, Employee

CAP SERVICES INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 07000288WR


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 beginning in week 49 of 2005, and until four weeks have elapsed since the end of the week of quitting and she has earned wages in covered employment performed after the week of quitting equaling at least four times her weekly benefit rate which would have been paid had the quitting not occurred.

Dated and mailed May 23, 2007
sepedan . usd : 115 : 1  VL 1007.01

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION


The employee worked ten years, most recently as a classroom manager (CM) for the employer, a Head Start program.

In order to be employed as a CM, a worker is required to obtain Child Development Associate (CDA) credentials from the private CDA National Credentialing Program. The employee obtained such credentials in November of 2000. The certificate she received at that time stated that her credentials were "valid for three years from date of issue."

During 2003, the employee was aware that her credentials would be expiring in November 2003. A letter signed by an administrative assistant (Renee Thompson-Krogman) of the employer on September 18, 2003 (exhibit #5), stated as follows:

Anglie Sepeda will need to extend the deadline for her CDA renewal to January 31, 2004. Angie will be fulfilling the requirement for CEU's [continuing education units] by taking two courses...at Mid-State Technical during the 2003-04 fall semester.

The fall semester does not end until December 15, 2003 and Angie will be on leave from January 6 through January 19, 2004. Angie will send all the required paperwork in for her CDA renewal to meet the January 31, 2004 deadline.

The employee did not take the courses outlined in this letter or otherwise satisfy the required CDA renewal requirements by the stated deadline.

The employer's assistant director testified (see page 4) that, "the first person [Thompson-Krogman] who was overseeing this mistakenly thought that there was a 2-year grace period to complete the requirements after the CDA expired, but that was not the case." The employee, however, did not testify that she was under the impression that there was a 2-year grace period or that she relied upon this to delay her application to renew her CDA certification.

Apparently, some time in March of 2005, Thompson-Kroger left her administrative assistant position with the employer and was replaced by Kristie Strebig. Strebig contacted the employee on March 28, 2005, to determine the status of her CDA certification. The employee told Strebig at that time that she had sent all the required information to the CDA program and was waiting for them to mail her certificate.

However, this was not so. The employee had not completed the required coursework by that date; did not submit or even request the required employment verification and supervisory recommendation until August of 2005; and admitted in her testimony that she did not complete the renewal application or otherwise initiate the renewal process until June of 2005.

When she had not received the employee's CDA certification by August 2, 2005, Strebig again contacted the employee. The employee told Strebig that she would contact the CDA program because she had submitted her transcripts in May or June, and implied in this conversation that her application had been complete as of that time.

Again, this was not so. The record shows that the employee did not submit or even request the required employment verification and supervisory recommendation until August 12, 2005, ten days later.

On August 17, 2005, the employer provided notice to the employee that she was required to have her CDA certificate renewed before classes started on September 12, 2005.

On September 12, 2005, the employer placed the employee on probation because she had still not provided the required CDA certification, and stated in writing to her that if such certification was not provided by November 12, 2005, termination could result.

Some time in October of 2005, the employee contacted the CDA program directly for the first to determine the status of her application. Although there was some confusion between her application and that of another applicant named Angela, this was resolved when the employee provided her social security number.

On November 9, 2005, the employer reminded the employee of the November 12 deadline.

On November 11, 2005, the employee sustained a work-related injury requiring surgery and a three-month period of recovery.

On November 30, 2005, the employee received notice that her application for the renewal of her CDA certification had been denied because her credentials had expired in November of 2003. The employee, as a result, was required to initiate the certification process as a new applicant rather than as an applicant for renewal.

By letter dated December 2, 2005, the employee provided notice to the employee that her employment had ended due to her failure to possess the required CDA certification.

The employer met with the employee on December 7, 2005, and offered her employment as a teaching assistant, which did not require CDA certification. The employee declined this offer.

The employee was not released to return to work by her treating physician(s) until December 26, 2006. She initiated a claim for benefits on January 2, 2007.

The employee clearly failed to exercise reasonable diligence in renewing her CDA certification, and this failure led to the separation.

Although the employee appears to attribute this failure, at least in part, to inaction on the part of the original administrative assistant (Thompson-Kroger), Thompson-Kroger obviously discussed the CDA certification renewal with the employee no later than September 18, 2003, and outlined in her letter of that date (exhibit #5) the means by which the employee had apparently agreed to complete the process no later than January 31, 2004, i.e., within the applicable grace period. The employee, however, despite her agreement at that time to complete the necessary classroom requirement in the fall 2003 semester, did not do so until the spring 2005 semester; and, despite her agreement to complete the other requirements of the application process by January 31, 2004, did not do so until August of 2005. The ultimate responsibility was clearly the employee's, she had reason to be aware of the November 2003 renewal deadline, and, despite her agreement with the employer to complete the necessary requirements by the January 31, 2004, extension deadline, did not do so until August of 2005. The fact that Thompson-Kroger did not remind the employee again or take action to initiate the employee's separation prior to leaving her employment in March 2005, does not relieve the employee from the ultimate responsibility here. The employee admits that she was at fault for failing to obtain the required renewal of her certification.

Moreover, when Thompson-Kroger's successor (Strebig) became aware of the situation and tried to clarify the status of the employee's certification in March 2005 and thereafter, the employee provided false information to her, leading her to believe that the employee had completed the necessary requirements and her certification should soon be forthcoming.

The commission agrees with the ALJ that the required renewal of the CDA certification was within the employee's control, not the employer's; her failure to exercise reasonable diligence to obtain it constituted action inconsistent with the continuation of the employment relationship; and this quitting did not satisfy any exception to the quit disqualification.



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


uploaded 2007/05/29