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


CHRISTINE L HOLZEM, Employe

OMNI MED TRANSCRIPTION INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 96608110WK


On November 20, 1996, the Department of Workforce Development issued an initial determination which held that the employe's quit was not for a reason allowing for immediate eligibility for unemployment benefits. The employe timely requested a hearing on the adverse determination, and hearing was held on December 30, 1996 in Waukesha, Wisconsin before a department administrative law judge. On January 17, 1997, the administrative law judge issued an appeal tribunal decision affirming the initial determination. The employe timely petitioned for commission review of the adverse appeal tribunal decision, and the matter now is ready for disposition.

Based upon the applicable law and the records and other evidence in the case, the commission issues the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The employe worked approximately 13 weeks as a transcriptionist for the employer, a medical transcription service. The employe also was engaged in approved training under Wis. Stat. § 108.04 (16). After approximately 13 weeks of employment, the employe terminated the employment effective November 1, 1996 (week 44), because she could not continue working and maintain her academic standing in her training. The commission believes the employer changed a condition of hire, such that the employe had good cause to quit the employment. The commission therefore reverses the appeal tribunal decision on that ground.

When the employe began her employment with the employer, the agreement between the employe and her supervisor was that the employer would allow some flexibility in the number of hours per week the employe had to work. This was because the employe would be returning to school full time a couple of weeks after she started working, and would not know until then how much she could work and still maintain her school work. Two or three weeks after the employe had been hired, she spoke with the employer's vice- president. In the interim, the supervisor who had hired the employe had been discharged. The vice-president indicated that the employer would not be able to afford the employe the flexibility the employe's supervisor had agreed to give the employe; the vice- president told the employe that everyone would be expected to put in additional hours because things were behind, and that she could not promise the employe that the employe would be able to lower her hours as she might need. The employe subsequently attempted to balanced the increased hours the employer was demanding with the employe's school attendance. She ultimately was unable to do so, and quit on November 1, 1996 (week 44).

Generally, one's unemployment insurance eligibility is suspended if he or she terminates employment with an employing unit. Exceptions include a termination with good cause attributable to the employer. See Wis. Stat. § 108.04 (7)(b). In this case, the original contract of employment between the employe and employer provided that the employe could work hours consistent with her school attendance, attendance sanctioned under the approved training statute, 108.04 (16). The employer then unilaterally altered the terms of the employment agreement, when it insisted that the employe work additional hours because things were behind. In the narrow circumstances of this case, this insisted-upon change in hours by the employer gave the employe good cause to quit her employment. The employe's school attendance was reasonable justification for her need for fewer hours, and the employer was aware of this scheduling need at the time of the employe's hire. The commission therefore finds that, in week 44 of 1996, the employe terminated her employment with good cause attributable to the employer, within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.04 (7)(b).

DECISION

The appeal tribunal decision is reversed. Accordingly, the employe is eligible for benefits if she is otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed: February 13, 1998
holzech : 105 : 1 VL 1080.02

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

NOTE: The commission did not confer with the administrative law judge before determining to reverse the appeal tribunal decision in this case. The commission does not disagree with the administrative law judge's factual findings and, indeed, has adopted many of them. Rather, the commission does not believe the employe had to take her case higher than to the employer's vice-president.

cc: ATTORNEY CAROLYN H DELERY
PODELL UGENT HANEY & DELERY SC


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