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

PATRICIA L HUEPHER, Employee

EVERGREEN ENERGY GROUP LLC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 07200178EC


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, as of week 38 of 2006, if she is otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed July 9, 2007
huephpa . usd : 132 : 8  BR 315  PC 713

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The employee has petitioned the appeal tribunal decision that found she voluntarily terminated her employment for a reason that permits immediate benefit payment. In a number of written submissions to the commission, the employee sets forth various arguments, requests, objections and motions. The commission will specifically address only some of the points raised by the employee. However, the commission has reviewed all of the employee's written submissions and determined that the ALJ correctly concluded that the employee was eligible for benefits. Accordingly, no further hearing will take place.

First, the employee has objected to the original synopsis. The commission directed that another synopsis be prepared and one was. The synopsis may have minor errors, and some words were found to be unintelligible (although not to the employee), but none of the employee's arguments or corrections establishes that the synopsis is not sufficiently complete and accurate to fairly reflect the relevant and material testimony and other evidence taken. Accordingly, the commission will not direct the preparation of a transcript.

The employee also makes a motion to dismiss because the employer has no liability, as it is an out-of-state nonsubject employer. The department sent out the notice to the nonsubject employer because it is the separating employer not because its account is liable. Further, the employee herself is petitioning a decision that grants her unemployment insurance benefits and which is therefore not, in a monetary sense, adverse to her.

The employee makes some legal arguments that are clearly not accurate. For example, the employee argues that because the employer did not raise an objection to her unemployment claim the determination illegally invented a challenge to her UI claim. However, the department is required to apply any provision of ch. 108 that may disqualify a claimant from receiving benefits, whether or not the employee's employing unit questions the employee's eligibility for benefits. Wis. Stat. § 108.04(13)(a).

The employee's main argument is that the ALJ should and could have made the additional finding that she quit her employment with good cause attributable to the employer. The employee argues that finding that the employee quit under the Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(e) exception should not preclude application of any other quit exception. The commission does not necessarily consider that the ALJ was precluded from finding that additional statutory exceptions to the quit disqualification apply to the employee's separation, but the commission concluded that the ALJ was not required to do so. In a typical case, if the department or commission finds an employee quit under a particular statutory exception, it does not then go through all the other statutory exceptions to see if any of the remaining exceptions might apply.

Finally, the employee's good cause attributable argument is essentially that the employer was engaging in illegal, unethical or shady business practices. The employee asserts that she was "used as an agent of misrepresentation." The employer in fact testified that the complaint the employee made prior to quitting was that the PC monitor hurt her eyes. The ALJ accepted the employer's testimony as to the reason the employee offered for quitting.

 


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


uploaded 2007/07/13