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

GWEN GOODRICH, Employe

INTER CITY OIL COMPANY INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 98201808MW

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, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed May 6, 1999
goodrgw.usd : 105 : 3  VL 1007

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Certain general considerations dictate the outcome in this case, even though the outcome appears to be inconsistent with both parties' belief as to the nature of the separation. First, unemployment insurance eligibility is governed by statute, administrative code, and case law, and those forms of law may not be superceded or voided by private arrangements, such as the employer alleges existed in this case. That is, the employer alleged that the employment relationship between the employer and employe contemplated periods of time of indefinite length where the employe both would remain an employe of the employer and would not be called in to work (because no one would be ill or on vacation). The unemployment insurance case law is to the contrary, however, and must outweigh the employer's and employe's understanding of their relationship. Specifically, a layoff of an indefinite period of time constitutes a discharge for unemployment insurance purposes. Legally, this is what the lengthy periods of no work amounted to, that is, layoffs (or discharges) for unemployment insurance purposes. Where work is sporadic but still occurs on a regular basis, this rule may not be applicable. In the present case, however, the employer had no work for the period from mid-April until early June, approximately a month and a half. This is too long a period of time, in the context of unemployment insurance, for the employment relationship to have continued in existence. It is for this reason that the employe's purported quit in early June was of no effect.

For these reasons, and those stated in the appeal tribunal decision, the commission has affirmed that decision.

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