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


JULIE A PARISH, Employe

ADECCO EMPLOYMENT SERVICES INC., Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 99003656BO


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.

Dated and mailed February 28, 2000
parisju.usd : 132 : 1  VL 1007  VL 1025

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The employer has petitioned for commission review of the adverse appeal tribunal decision which found that the employe was discharged from her employment with the employer in week 3 of 1999 and not for misconduct connected with her work. The employer maintains in its petition that the employe voluntarily terminated her employment by accepting work with the employer's client. The employer maintains that the employe made the choice to quit her employment with the employer and accept work with the employer's client. The commission has reviewed the record in this matter and must agree with the administrative law judge that under the facts of this case the employer discharged the employe and the employe did not voluntarily terminate her employment. In this case, the employe's employment ended pursuant to an agreement the employer had with its client. This employe was not a party to such agreement. The commission has previously dealt with situations such as this where a temporary agency has an agreement with a client that allows the client to hire the employe after a designated period of time. The employer must establish both that the employer had additional work available that the employe could have performed with another client and that the employe was aware that she could decline to accept employment with the client and continue such work with the employer. The employer's testimony did not establish that the employe was told that she could continue work for the employer. The only testimony the employer offered regarding the employe's knowledge of the transfer was that she was told at the time of hire that the client could hire her after 60 days. This does not establish that she was told she was free to refuse that work and continue with the employer or that the employer had other work available for her. For these reasons, and for the reasons set forth in the appeal tribunal decision, the commission affirms that decision.

cc:

ADECCO EMPLOYMENT SERVICES

WRAY VASSAR
CONTINENTAL INVESTIGATIONS

JONATHAN GRESCHLER
HEARING REPRESENTATIVE
C/O EMPLOYERS UNITY INC


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