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


JACQUELYNE J BRAATZ, Employe

WAYLAND ACADEMY, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 98001122BD


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 employe is eligible for benefits beginning in week 7 of 1998, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed: December 29, 1998
braatja.usd : 164 : 5   VL 1080.20

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In the petition for commission review the employer argues that the employe should have been able to finish the project on time, but chose not to do what needed to be done. The employer contends that the employe bore sole or primary responsibility for failing to meet the deadline and was reasonably held accountable by the employer in an exercise of its managerial discretion. The commission has considered these and the other arguments raised in the employer's brief, but finds them unpersuasive.

The employe's most recent performance evaluation indicated that she had problems meeting deadlines during critical times. Yet, in spite of its understanding that the employe had difficulty in this area, the employer nonetheless elected to assign her the task of completing a crucial and time-sensitive fundraising mailing. The commission agrees with the appeal tribunal that the employer bore ultimate responsibility for completing the mailing in a timely fashion and that its decision to assign the project to the employe without providing her the assistance necessary to complete it was unreasonable.

Moreover, the evidence does not support a conclusion that the employe wilfully chose not to do what needed to be done to complete the job. While the record indicates that the employe failed to appreciate the magnitude of the project and did not begin the mailing as early as she should have, the evidence also established that the employe faced certain impediments she could not have anticipated and that she did her utmost to complete the work on time. Indeed, the employe even went so far as to ask her friends and family to volunteer their services on the project and worked extra hours, in violation of doctor's restrictions limiting her to a 40-hour work week. When it became clear to the employe that she would be unable to complete the work by the deadline she notified her supervisor of this fact, but instead of receiving assistance or being granted an extension of time, was threatened with disciplinary action if she did not adhere to the deadline previously set. The employer was aware that the employe was not medically permitted to work more than 40 hours in a week, and must have realized that the only way in which the employe could comply with the mandate to have the project done by Monday morning was to exceed her doctor's restrictions and work over the weekend. Although the employe did put in additional hours in an effort to meet the deadline imposed by the employer, she was nonetheless disciplined for her failure to complete the project on time.

Under all of the circumstances, the commission agrees with the appeal tribunal that the employer's actions were so unreasonable as to justify the employe's decision to quit. Accordingly, the appeal tribunal decision is affirmed.

PAMELA I. ANDERSON, COMMISSIONER (Dissenting):

I am unable to agree with the result reached by the majority herein and I dissent. If this were a case where the employer had discharged the employe, I do not believe they could have established misconduct. This case is a quit case and the administrative law judge and the majority have found that it was with good cause attributable to the employer.

I disagree that the employe had good cause attributable to the employer to quit. The record seems to show a change in the employe's attitude at the time she was told she would be expected to work more hours under her salary position without additional compensation. At that time she got a letter from her doctor requesting that her hours be limited to about 40 hours per week because of her sinusitis and asthma. This is nothing in the record to show that she had more health problems because of workload.

The employe did not notify the employer in a timely fashion about the printer problems she was having and she also left on January 30th before the materials were delivered to the office. The employer had no control over the fact that a co-worker was sick on Thursday and two workers were at a seminar on Friday. The employe testified that she did 500 envelopes in three hours and she did at least 500 on Thursday. While the employe did come in for three hours on Saturday and three hours on Sunday that was not sufficient. I do not believe that the reprimand was unjustified. Thus, I do not believe that the employe had good cause attributable to the employer to quit. I would reverse to find that the employe quit not within any exception and she would be required to requalify for benefits.

Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner


cc: ATTORNEY ERIC L BECKER
QUINCEY BECKER & SCHUESSLER SC

ATTORNEY CLIFFORD B BUELOW
DAVIS & KUELTHAU


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