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

WALTER O. GESCHKE, Employee

AMERICAN GIRL INC., Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 07004410MD


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 43 of 2007, and until the employee has earned wages in covered employment performed after the week of quitting equaling at least $1,420 (four times $355).

Dated and mailed January 10, 2008
geschwa . usd : 145 : 1 VL 1034 SW 885.05

 

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 the job duties he performed as an order processor fell within the COED definition of Order and Contact clerks. The employee argues that his job involved receiving incoming orders for merchandise, informing customers of order receipt, prices, shipping dates, delays, preparing a contract of sale and fielding minor complaints. The employee, at the hearing, explained that his duties involved answering the phone and taking orders for the employer's products. This involved asking for personal information, entering product codes either given to the employee by the customers or looking them up, tallying the orders up and charging the correct amount to the customer's credit cards. The employee explained that customers might occasionally call back if a credit card did not go through, and he would refer those customers to customer service. The employee further testified that when a customer would call up for "some sort of issue or complaint" he would send the customer to customer service. The employee did not indicate at the hearing that he handled any minor customer complaints.

The department witness, a Labor Market Analyst, testified that she gathered information on wages, hours, and working conditions. She also writes reports, creates publications and gives presentations on local labor markets. She testified that the appropriate job title for the services performed by the employee was telemarketer. She indicated that the employee did not perform the duties of a customer service clerk. As pointed out by the ALJ, the employee did not handle customer complaints, and he did not really exercise judgment. The labor market analyst also explained that telemarketers can take inbound calls and are not limited to making outbound calls. Thus, the ALJ's conclusion is based on an expert evaluation of the employee's specific job duties.

The employee further argues that the neutrality of the opinion offered by the labor market analyst seemed compromised in his opinion because the expert was given a copy of the initial investigation and appeal request in advance of the hearing. The employee has not explained why he believes this to be the case. The commission has reviewed the evidence in the record and sees nothing to suggest that the labor market analyst was biased.


cc: American Girl, Inc. (Middleton, Wisconsin)


 

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


uploaded 2008/01/18