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


ROBIN R WEEKS, Employe

BESTT ROLLR INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 98004179FL


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 ineligible for unemployment benefits beginning in week 40 of 1998, and until the employe is again able to work and available for suitable work.

Dated and mailed June 30, 1999
weeksro.usd : 132 : 7 AA 205

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The employe has petitioned for commission review of the adverse appeal tribunal' decision which found that as of week 40 of 1998 she was not available for work. The employe states in her petition that the public policy declared in Wis. Stat. § 108.01(2) includes encouraging education and retraining of workers during periods of unemployment. The employe also notes that the requirements under Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 128.01(2)(a) apply to a claimant who does not have good cause for restricting her availability to less than 50 percent of the full-time opportunities for suitable work. However, as the note to Wis. Admin. Code § 128.01(2)(a) states "Section ILHR (now DWD) 128.01 (2) (a) applies to a claimant whose restrictions on availability to work are within his or her power to change or alter. School attendance is generally a controllable restriction and, therefore, `without good cause' unless the person is enrolled in an approved training under s. 108.04(16), Stats." Thus, while education and retraining is to be encouraged, it is encouraged under specific provisions of the UI law and, in particular, the approved training portion of the law. The employe's school attendance does not meet the requirements of approved training.

Although the employe's choice of further education is a laudable one, it is not good cause under the UI law for restricting one's opportunities to secure work. The purpose of unemployment insurance is to provide temporary benefits to those persons out of work through no fault of their own, but who remain genuinely attached to the labor market and available for work during the time of the claim. With the exception of approved training, the unemployment insurance law is not intended to finance a worker's education. Accordingly, since the employe's school attendance presented a restriction on the employe's opportunities to secure employment, and since the restriction was not with good cause for unemployment insurance purposes, it must be held that the school program removed the employe from the labor market, resulting in benefit ineligibility.

cc: ATTORNEY ANTHONY L OMALLEY
ZACHERL OMALLEY & ENDEJAN

BRENDA KELLER
RESOURCES CONSULTING

GERALD E STEPHENS
VICE PRESIDENT GM
BESTT LIEBCO ROLLR INC


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