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


DAVID L WEBBER SR, Employe

P A STAFFING SER INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 99601291MW


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, except that it makes the following modifications:

In the decision paragraph, delete "The department's initial determination is reversed" and insert "The department's initial determination is affirmed."

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge, as modified, is affirmed. Accordingly, benefits are allowed if the employe is otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed June 9, 1999
webbeda.umd : 178 : 7  SW 845.03

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In its petition for commission review, the employer argues that it made the employe a bona fide offer of work which he turned down without good cause. It therefore requests the appeal tribunal decision be reversed.

It has been consistently held that in order for an offer of work to be considered bona fide, it should be of such definite character that nothing more than a simple acceptance is necessary to form a contract of hire. K& H Construction, Inc v. Ind. Comm. & Severson, Dane County Circuit Court, case no. 124-118, March 8, 1968. Although the employer may have had a specific position in mind and may have determined the nature of the all relevant conditions of such employment, those conditions were not fully communicated to the employe. The ALJ concluded that the failure to include the location of the job left the offer incomplete since the employe was without enough information to simply accept and complete the contract of hire. Particularly with an individual who is dependant on the bus for transportation, its location and accessibility by bus will perhaps be the most important element of a job. The employer did not include this information but left it to the employe to clarify this with a phone call. Therefore, the letter itself falls short of a fully complete bona fide job offer. The employe's own failings in calling the wrong office of the employer and failing to clarify the terms and conditions of the offer as a result does not constitute a failure to accept since the offer was not a complete and bona fide one when made.


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