CHEYNE N STATEZNY, Employee

GAMEDAY SPORTSBAR INC, Employer

An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Division of Unemployment Insurance of the Department of Workforce Development issued an appeal tribunal 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 appeal tribunal decision is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee is ineligible for benefits until the employee earns wages in covered employment after the week in which the quitting occurred equal to at least six times the weekly benefit rate which would have been paid had the quitting not occurred.

Dated and mailed April 21, 2016

statechusd . doc : 135 :  VL 1016 : VL 1033 : VL 1039.09

BY THE COMMISSION:

/s/ Laurie R. McCallum, Chairperson

/s/ C. William Jordahl, Commissioner

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

The employee worked for eight months as a part-time server for the employer, a bar and restaurant. The employee's last day of work was December 26, 2015 (week 52).

The employee also worked full-time for another employer but that full-time position ended in December of 2015. The employee could not afford to pay all of his bills on only a part-time salary, so he quit his employment with the employer on December 30, 2015 (week 50), to move two hours away to stay with his parents.

The issue for review is whether the employee's quitting was for any reason permitting the payment of benefits.

The statutes provide that, if an employee terminates work with an employing unit, the employee is ineligible for benefits until the employee has earned wages in covered employment equaling at least 6 times the weekly benefit rate, unless the termination was: (1) in lieu of a suspension or termination by the employer of another employee's work; (2) with good cause attributable to the employer; (3) because the employee was unable to do the work and had no reasonable alternative; (4) because the health of a member of the employee's immediate family necessitated that the employee care for the family member longer than the employer was willing to grant the employee leave; (5) because the employee was hired to work a particular shift and the employer transferred the employee to a shift resulting in a lack of childcare; (6) within 30 calendar days after starting work which could have been refused with good cause or to protect labor standards; (7) to accept other work with conditions equal to or more favorable than the terminated work or closer to the employee's domicile; or (8) due to domestic abuse against the employee, concerns about the employee's safety or being harassed, or concerns about safety or harassment of family members who live with the employee or other household members. There are also exceptions that apply to an employee or the employee's spouse if the employee is on active duty with the U.S. armed forces.

The employee argues that he should be eligible for unemployment benefits for quitting because he could no longer afford to live where he was living with only a part-time job with the employer.

In his petition for commission review, the employee cites a commission decision, Reiss v. Pro Clean, Inc. UI Dec. Hearing No. 07402644AP (LIRC March 21, 2008), in support of his argument that it was not economically feasible to maintain his part-time employment with the employer after losing his full-time employment. The statutory exception that permitted benefits for quitting in the Reiss case however was repealed by the legislature in 2013 Wisconsin Act 20, section 1717L.

The language of the statute, as it has been created by the legislature, requires the result reached. The commission is required to apply the statute as it is written and has no authority to deviate from its plain language. While such language results in a decision adverse to the employee, this reflects the legislature's intent in cases such as these.

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

uploaded 2016/05/31