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

ΜICHAEL C LΑWLΕЅЅ, Employee

ADVOCAP INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 07003402BD


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 for weeks 25 through 29 of 2007, and until he has earned wages in covered employment performed after the week of quitting equaling at least $1,316.

Dated and mailed November 19, 2007
lаwlеmi . usd : 164 : 9  VL 1007 VL 1014

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In his petition for commission review the employee argues that he did not quit, but was told that failure to sign a performance disciplinary notice would result in discharge from his employment. The employee states he told his supervisor he was not quitting, but would not sign a document that had false accusations in it. He contends that signing the document would have been an admission that the contents were true. These arguments fail. The employee was asked to sign a last-chance agreement as a condition of his continued employment. The employee could have kept his job by signing the document, but was unwilling to do so. Where the employee had the last chance to preserve the employment relationship but chose not to do so, the separation from employment is considered a quit. See, In the matter of the unemployment benefit claim of Tony C Lewis, UI Dec. No. 94606558MW (LIRC March 14, 1995).

Regarding the employee's assertion that signing the document would have been admitting its contents were true, the evidence is to the contrary. Directly above the line for the employee's signature the document states, "I acknowledge the receipt of this memorandum and understand the contents. I understand that failure to comply will result in discharge from employment." It is clear, then, that the employee's signature would have merely indicated an understanding of the contents of the document and would not have signified agreement that the contents were true. The commission has routinely held that an employee who refuses to sign a corrective action plan because he disagrees with the contents does not have good cause to quit where he could have signed without admitting guilt or agreeing with the allegations contained therein. See, for example, Smith v. The Prudential Benrud Realty, UI Hearing No. 02202470EC (LIRC May 7, 2003); Burton v. Signicast Corp, UI Dec. No. 00603251MW (LIRC Oct. 23, 2000); Beshears v. Intl Cabling Systems, UI Dec. No. 00004185MD (LIRC Dec. 18, 2000). Here, signing the document would not have indicated agreement with it, and the employee was not justified in refusing to sign based upon a factual disagreement. Under all the facts and circumstances, the commission agrees with the appeal tribunal that the employee quit, and not with good cause attributable to the employer. Accordingly, the appeal tribunal decision is affirmed.

cc: Attorney Susan M. Love



Appealed to Circuit Court.  Affirmed May 7, 2008.

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


uploaded 2007/11/28