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

CHESTER D RICE, Employe

NORRELL SERVICES, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 99606969MW

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 38 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 February 1, 2000
riceche.usd : 105 : 1  VL 1039.09

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ 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 does not fall under Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(k). Every quit of employment is disqualifying under Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(a), unless the quit meets one of the exceptions which make up the remainder of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7). The relevant exceptions here are (7)(b), quit with good cause attributable to the employer, and (7)(k), the so-called quit/economic unfeasibility exception. For a quit to be with good cause attributable to the employer, an employe generally must exhaust reasonable alternatives to simply quitting the employment. It was to address the potential applicability of this provision that the administrative law judge questioned whether the employe had alternatives short of quitting the employment.

The employe's representative is correct in his assertion that the notion of "reasonable alternatives" is not a criterion of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(k). On its face, though, that provision requires that the loss of the full-time employment make it economically unfeasible for the employe to continue the part-time employment. In this case, the employe did not make that showing. Wisconsin Administrative Code § DWD 132.03 sets forth criteria to be used to determine whether continuing part-time work would be "economically unfeasible" within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(k). Briefly, expenses connected with the part-time work must be high enough that continuing the part-time work is less remunerative than quitting it. The employe did not make this showing, so the administrative law judge properly found that his quit did not fall under Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(k).

cc: ANDREW L FRANKLIN
ATTORNEY AT LAW

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