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


LORRAINE C MCCAULEY, Employe

FRIENDSHIP VILLAGE OF GREATER MILWAUKEE INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 98607786MW


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 benefits beginning in week 43 of 1998, and until four weeks have elapsed since the end of the week of quitting and the employe has earned wages in covered employment performed after the week of quitting equaling at least four times the employe's weekly benefit rate which would have been paid had the quitting not occurred.

Dated and mailed July 28, 1999
mccaulo.usd : 132 : 3 VL 1059.20

/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 she voluntarily terminated her employment and not for any reason permitting the immediate payment of unemployment benefits. The employe was offered a new position which involved a change in duties and in pay. It was the employe's failure to take the minimal step of contacting human resources that prevented her from receivning additional information about the new position. While the employe and the employer did not know exactly what the position was paid, the employe testified that based on her experience that it would have paid somewhere around the $19 mark. Using that figure, however, the position was not substantially less favorable to the employe than existed for similar work in her labor market. That does not mean, however, that the employe cannot establish good cause attributable to the employer. A decrease in pay and demotion with respect to job responsibilities can constitute good cause attributable to the employer. Decreases in pay from 10 to 30 percent, whether or not substantially less favorable, have been deemed to constitute good cause attributable to the employer for quitting. However, in this case, the commission agrees with the administrative law judge that the employer was justified in transferring the employe from her position because of the failures in performance. While the employer may not have explicitly notified the employe that it considered the deficiencies so severe that it was contemplating removing her from her supervisory position, the fact that deficiencies existed is clear. Further, the employe was a registered nurse and by virtue of her position, skills, and knowledge she knew what was required of her. The employe had serious failures in documentation and failed to do assessments. The employer clearly needed someone in the employe's position who was able to accomplish the basic requirements of that position. The employer's transfer of the employe was not done with the intent to induce the employe to quit and was not done without justification. For these reasons, and for the reasons set forth in the appeal tribunal decision, the commission affirms that decision.

cc: FRIENDSHIP VILLAGE

ATTORNEY RICHARD J STEINBERG
STEINBERG LAW OFFICES SC


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