HARLAN C PETERSEN, Employee

PAPER TRANSPORT INC, 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 makes the following:

The employee worked about 12 weeks as a driver for the employer, a transportation company. His last day of work was December 5, 2008.

On December 5, 2008 (week 49), the employee quit his job with the employer.

The issue to be decided is whether the employee quit for any reason that permits the immediate payment of unemployment benefits.

When the employee began working for the employer he was told he could expect 2300 paid miles per week. The employee averaged around 2000 miles per week in the first four weeks of his employment. After that the employee's miles decreased until he was averaging only 900 miles per week. The result was the employee's take home pay decreased by more than half. The decrease was due to poor economic conditions. The employer still has not recovered from those poor conditions.

Under Stetz v. DILHR, et al., Dane County Circuit Court, Case No. 136-215 (February 13, 1973), good cause attributable to the employer can be determined if such quitting was a reasonable reaction to some act on the part of the employer. In other words, the "good cause" relates to the reaction of the employee, and not whether the employer had good cause for the action it did which precipitated the employee quitting. Thus, regardless of the employer's financial difficulties, the employee had good cause to quit given the substantial reduction in pay. Courts have held that a substantial wage decrease does constitute good cause for quitting. As stated by the court in Frank v. DILHR et al., Case Nos. 134-237, 134-238 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Dane Co., March 13, 1972): "There undoubtedly is some point at which a decrease in compensation is so great as to constitute as a matter of law good cause for the employee's quitting . . . ." In similar cases, a wage reduction of 11 to 30 percent has been found to provide good cause for quitting. Here, the employee's wage reduction was more than 50 percent, a substantial decrease in pay. Under the circumstances, the substantial reduction establishes that the employee's quitting was with good cause attributable to the employer.

The commission therefore finds that in week 49 of 2008, the employee voluntarily terminated his work with good cause attributable to the employer within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(b).

The decision of the administrative law judge is reversed. Accordingly, the employee is eligible for benefits beginning in week 49 of 2008, if he is otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed March 26, 2009
peterha . urr : 132 : 1 : VL 1059.20

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairperson

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

The commission did not consult with the ALJ regarding witness credibility and demeanor. The commission's reversal is not based on the credibility of the witnesses. The commission has reached a different legal conclusion than the ALJ based on the undisputed facts.

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

uploaded 2009/04/03