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


MARLON J LUGINBUHL, Employe

HOOPER CORP, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 99002329WR


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 19 of 1999, 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 October 6, 1999
luginma.usd : 105 : 1 VL 1080.22

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The commission has affirmed the appeal tribunal decision in this case, because it agrees with the administrative law judge that the employe's quit was not with good cause attributable to the employer. The employe quit the employment due to safety concerns over improper actions by employes of the client to whom the employer had assigned the employe. After the employe walked off the job, however, the employer met with the client in order to remedy the matters the employe had complained of. At that point, the employe continued to refuse to report back to work; he testified at hearing that conditions were so lax that the risks would have remained had he returned to work there. The employe could not know that, however, without returning to work. If, upon his return, the conditions in fact remained as lax as they had been, then this would be a different case. The employe was at least obligated to see if the employer had been able to correct the matter, however, before a quit could be found to have been with good cause attributable to the employer. Since the employe did not return after the employer addressed his concerns, his quit does not fall within the quit/good cause attributable to the employer provision, Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(b).

cc: ATTORNEY DAVID L GRACE
SCHMIDT GRACE & DUNCAN


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