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


ANGELA R INGRAM, Employe

NEUROLOGICAL CLINIC SC , Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 99603350RC


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 16 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 weekly benefit rate which would have been paid had the quitting not occurred.

Dated and mailed November 3, 1999
ingraan.usd : 105 : 1 VL 1007.01

/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's conclusion of quit. The employe's attorney cites Moore v. Carpenters Dist. Council of Milw. Co., UC Hearing No. 98607439MW (LIRC June 22, 1999) to support the proposition that removal of personal belongs is not dispositive of the issue whether an employe has quit employment. It is true that such conduct is not always dispositive, but it is a factor which generally is conduct inconsistent with an intent to continue an employment relationship. The administrative law judge accepted as credible the testimony of the employer's witnesses to the effect that the employe removed personal belongings from her work area when she left early on her last day of employment. Nothing in the record indicates to the commission that this assessment by the administrative law judge was erroneous, so the commission will not disturb it.

The employe's attorney also cites Harris Calorific Sales, Inc., No. 494-021 (Wis. Cir. Ct. Milw. Co. July 21, 1980), for the proposition that leaving work while upset is not necessarily a quit. Indeed but, again, it is a factor which can be considered when determining whether an employe's overall course of conduct constitutes a quit of employment.

The employe's representative cites Cunningham v. P A Staffing, Inc., UC Hearing No. 98600293RC (LIRC April 17, 1998), for the proposition that subsequent notice of absence is indication of intent to continue employment. It may be such or, as the employer speculated, it may also be a belated attempt by the employe, after having considered the matter, to get back employment the employe has just abandoned.

The employe's attorney argues that the employer did not consider the employe to have quit her employment during the April 12 meeting. This is true. This argument ignores a significant subsequent event, however, the employe's taking from the work site her personal belongings.

In this case, the employe ostensibly had a valid reason for leaving work early on the day in question: her high blood pressure. The only reasonable explanation for the employe's taking with her of her personal belongings, and of her asking for her paycheck, however, are that the employe intended to quit the employment at that time. It was within the employer's right, when looking at the sequence of events that morning, to conclude that the employe had quit her employment, as it did. For these reasons, and those stated in the appeal tribunal decision, the commission has affirmed that decision.

cc: 
ATTORNEY JON DEITRICH
ADELMAN & HYNES SC


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