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

TERRIA J JOHNSON, Employee

LIFELINE SERVICES OF FOND DU LAC INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 10402453AP


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:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The employee worked for about five years, most recently as a residential manager for the employer, group homes for developmentally disabled adults. Her last day of work was on January 21, 2010 (week 4).

The employee began working for the employer as a program assistant. In December of 2006, she was promoted to the position of residential manager. She managed one group home. The employee was paid $35,000 for managing one home. In the summer of 2007, the employee became manager of two group homes.

In the fall of 2008, the employee informed the administrator that she could not handle two group homes. She requested to return to managing only one group home. The employee made that same request on one or two more occasions. The last time that she made the request was in January of 2010. She was informed that if she would manage one group home her pay would be reduced. She was earning $39,375.00 for managing two group homes.

The employee did not work after January 21, for medical reasons. She was placed on a medical leave of absence. On February 9, the administrator sent the employee a letter informing her that if she wanted to manage only one group home that her pay would be reduced to $27,040 per year.

On February 10, the employee contacted the administrator and informed the administrator that she was resigning. She was told to think about her decision over the weekend. On February 15, 2010 (week 8), the employee submitted her letter of resignation.

The issue to be decided is whether the employee's quitting was for any reason that would permit the immediate payment of unemployment benefits.

The employee argued that she quit her employment and should be eligible for benefits because of the substantial reduction in salary. The employee argued that another manager had requested a reduction from two group homes to one group home was not given a pay reduction when her request was granted. She also argued that she quit her employment because workers were encouraged to go through an ex-worker's personnel file and write statements about incidents that occurred with the ex-worker. The commission agrees that the employee quit her work with good cause attributable to the employer.

The employee in this case had a reasonable expectation that her pay would decrease to roughly $35,000 as that is what she made when she managed one group home in the summer of 2007, right before she became the manager of two homes. The employee began working as a personal care worker in April of 2005 and was earning about $27,000. The employer's decision to decrease her salary to that same amount for managing one home was punitive and amounted to good cause attributable to the employer for quitting.

The commission therefore finds that in week 8 of 2010, the employee quit her work with good cause attributable to the employer, within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(b).


DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is reversed. Accordingly, the employee is eligible for benefits, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed November 10, 2010
johnste . urr : 145 : 1 VL 1059 . 20, VL 1080 . 26

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairperson

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The commission discussed witness credibility and demeanor with the ALJ who held the hearing. The ALJ did not have any specific reasons for findings one of the parties more credible than the other and in fact, most of the facts in the case were not disputed. The commission however found that the employer's substantial reduction in salary was so extreme as to give rise to good cause attributable to the employer for quitting.

cc: Attorney Nathaniel A. Jones


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


uploaded 2011/01/14