ROBERT A WORTHLEY, Employee

KOHLER CO, Employer

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.

The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee's appeal is dismissed.

Dated and mailed June 12, 2008
worthro . usd : 145 : 6

James T. Flynn, Chairperson

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

In his petition for commission review, the employee explains that he filed his appeal late for a reason beyond his control, since he could not control whether he understood the language in the initial determination or not. The employee explains that he misunderstood the phrase "no benefits are payable from 03/16/08 through 04/19/08 and until the employee earns wages after the week of the quit equaling at least $1,420.00 in covered employment." The employee explained at the hearing that he was preoccupied by the employer's insistence that he sign a contract. The employee further explains that he believed that all he had to do was wait until April 19, 2008, and he could file another claim. The commission has carefully considered his argument in this regard. However, the word "and" indicates that both conditions must be met. If the employee need only satisfy one of the conditions, the sentence would have said "or." In addition, the employee's position is not logical. Clearly the employee believes he should be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits based on his separation and that is why he is requesting a hearing. However, if one considered another situation, for example, a worker who quit a job because he or she simply became tired or going to work every day, it would simply not make sense to allow that worker to quit a job, file for benefits, be denied, and then simply wait four weeks to file another claim. While the employee's argument is that he sincerely misunderstood the language in the initial determination, the employee cannot rely upon an interpretation of the language that was simply unreasonable. Further, the initial determination was clearly adverse to the employee, and he had a duty to read it carefully and ensure that he understood the requalification requirements.

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

uploaded 2008/06/20