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


LESLIE L LICHTFUSS, Employe

BEMIS SPECIALTY FILMS, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 98402102AP


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 beginning in week 31 of 1998, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed July 30, 1999
lichtle.usd : 178 : 1 VL 1005 VL 1080.20

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The employer does not dispute that harassment occurred. However in its brief, it argues that it attempted to remedy the harassment and the employe quit without good cause when she refused to chose one of several transfer options offered to her to retain her employment when knowledge of her complaint leaked out.

As the employer points out, the commission has generally held that while an employe is not required to exhaust alternatives, in most cases she is expected to at least pursue some alternatives to resolve an employment issue short of quitting. Gilkay v. Servicemaster of Stevens Point (LIRC, September 28, 1995). The issue in this case is whether the employe had in fact explored options to quitting and whether she was reasonable in rejecting a transfer rather than continue working for the employer.

The employe took many steps during the course of her employment to remedy her unsatisfactory working conditions. She had already accepted one transfer after making a complaint and rumors about that complaint followed her to her new assignment. She was subjected to harassment by supervisors. She discussed it with them. Pursuant to a formal harassment policy, she made a formal complaint to the employer's human resource person and asked for the harassment to stop. She was promised in the policy that the complaint would remain confidential, but it did not. She took a medical leave of absence due to the harassment. When she returned to work, she discovered her complaint was not confidential but widely known about in her department and she experienced shunning and hostility. At that point she left work and ultimately decided not to return. Doug admitted telling a few people and the ALJ reasonably inferred he was the source of the rumors.

The employe clearly pursued avenues short of quitting in her attempt to resolve her dissatisfaction with her job. The issue is whether she was required to accept the transfer. Based on her prior experience, she reasonably concluded that these rumors that she was a trouble maker would follow her to yet another assignment. She had made her complaint to human resources with the understanding that it would remain confidential and it resulted instead in increased tension in her work environment. As the ALJ explained, her supervisor, despite warnings not to do so, had informed her co-workers about her complaint which caused her working environment to become untenable. Since Doug held a supervisory position his actions must be attributed to the employer even if they were unauthorized. The employe had attempted to resolve her problems with the employer short of  quitting. She is not required to exhaust every alternative. Therefore the commission concludes with the appeal tribunal that her quitting was with good cause attributable to the employer.

cc: 
Attorney Alan C Olson
Alan C Olson & Associates SC

Attorney John Theil
Godfrey & Kahn


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