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


JANA M DUNCAN, Employe

ACCESSIBLE MEDICAL STAFFING INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 99602828MW


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. No repayment of benefits is required.

Dated and mailed September 9, 1999
duncaja.usd : 105 : 6 SW 800 SW 810.15

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The employer asserts in the petition for review that, over the course of its employment relationship with the employe, the employe refused or was unavailable to work at the majority of the assignments offered. The present case concerns only one such assignment, however, and the record indicates that the employe had good cause under Wis. Stat. § 108.04(8)(a) not to take it. The employe had short-term transportation difficulties, which developed at a late date, indeed after the employe initially had accepted the assignment.

The employer argues in its petition for review that the employe could have utilized another means of transportation to the work site. The employer and the dissent suggest that the employe's husband could have driven her. There is no evidence in the hearing record, however, to suggest that he could have done so. (1) That he works a different shift, by itself, does not establish that he was able to available to drive the employe to work. As for the possibility of other means of transportation, the employe specifically testified that she checked into bus service to the area but that, at the time, no such service was available. The assignment also was too far away for the employe to be expected to take a cab. For these reasons, the commission agrees with the administrative law judge that the employe had personal good cause, within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(8)(a), to decline the offer of work at issue in this case.

 

Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner, (Dissenting):

I am unable to agree with the result reached by the majority herein and I dissent. The employe first accepted an assignment for 6:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on Monday, February 22, 1999. The job paid $24 an hour. The employe called back and canceled the assignment because her husband's car broke down. The car was in the shop until February 23 or 24. Her husband worked for UPS from 10 p.m. to 3:30 or 4:00 a.m. They needed her car to take a second grader to school at 9 a.m. and a four-year-old to school at 12 p.m. I see no reason why her husband could not have taken her to work and picked her up. The fact that she originally accepted the assignment means that her husband would have taken the children to school if his vehicle had been working.

Based on this record, I would find that the employe failed to accept an offer of suitable and thus was not able and available in Week 9. Therefore I would reverse and deny benefits.

Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner


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


Footnotes:

(1)( Back ) The dissent's assertion to this effect is speculation, and is countered by the possibility that the employe's husband, after extremely fatiguing work all night long, had to sleep until shortly before 9 a.m., when he then would take his second grader to school. The point is that this is all speculation. The record does not establish that the employe's husband was able to take her to work; that ends the matter.