EUGENE J REYMENT JR, Employee

RELYCO 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 five years as an operator for the employer, a highway contractor. His last day of work was June 5, 2009.

The employee, throughout his employment, was basically assigned to work in Northeastern Wisconsin. The employee, at the time of hire, was informed that the employer was a Northeastern Wisconsin company and that the employee would stay within a 75 mile radius of Green Bay. The policy had been, until about a week before the employee's last day of work, that if a worker was unable or unwilling to take an assignment because of travel distance, that the worker would be laid off.

On June 5, 2009 (week 23) the employee quit his job with the employer because he did not wish to work in Racine. The employee considered it too far from his family. Because of the distance from his home he could not return home at night and he rented a hotel room that he shared with another worker or workers.

The employee argued that he was justified in quitting because he was assigned to work in Racine, Wisconsin, and that was too far from his family in Northeastern Wisconsin. The commission agrees.

The employee worked for the employer for about five years and generally worked in Northeastern Wisconsin. He was told when he was hired that the work would be in Northeastern Wisconsin. In fact, he had not been assigned work that was further than 80 miles from his home. Racine was 152 miles from his home. The employee was unable to commute from his home and had to rent a hotel room. The employer in this case unilaterally changed the conditions of the employee's employment and that change was to the employee's detriment. Under the circumstances in this case, the employee quit his job with good cause attributable to the employer.

The commission therefore finds that in week 23 of 2009, the employee quit his work with 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, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed December 23, 2009
reymeeu . urr : 145 : 5 VL 1015, VL 1005.01

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairperson

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

The commission discussed witness credibility and demeanor with the ALJ who held the hearing. He found both parties to be generally credible. The ALJ noted that neither party had detailed evidence, but he found the witnesses to be generally truthful. The commission agrees. The main points of disagreement were whether the employee had been told that he would be working in Northeastern Wisconsin and whether the union contract required workers to work in any location in the state. It was the employee's impression that he could choose to work in only one quarter of the state whereas the employer believed that the employee was required to work anywhere in the state. Neither party had a copy of the contract. The commission found the employee credible when he testified that he was told at hire that he would be working in Northeastern Wisconsin because he had done so for the first five years of his employment. Further, while the employee's supervisor testified ultimately that the employee would have been required to work throughout the state, his testimony suggested that he only came to this belief at the time that the employee quit. The supervisor specifically testified that another worker who did not wish to travel was simply laid off, which further supports the employee's testimony that he was originally told that he did not have to travel outside of Northeastern Wisconsin.

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

uploaded 2010/01/08