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

CAROL A ROBBINS, Employe

SEEK INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 99608437MW

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 April 20, 2000
robbica.usd : 105 : 2   VL 1007 VL 1025 PC 729

/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 appeal tribunal's conclusion of layoff.

The difficulty with this case is that there was no meeting of the minds among the three principals at the time of hire. The employer's policy is that employes will remain employes of the employer for 120 days unless the client buys out the contract of the employe in question. The employe believed that this was going to occur. The employe had just left employment of six years' duration, and testified that that was a perfectly good job but that she was looking for advancement. It was only after the employe had accepted the position, given notice to her previous employer, and met with the client's human resources individual to work out a starting date, that the employe was told the client was having difficulty coming up with the money to pay the buyout fee. At that point, the employe was told the client was going to work something out with the employer.

From this point the administrative law judge reasoned, properly in the commission's opinion, that those aspects of the relationship were between the employer and the client. For these reasons, and those stated in the appeal tribunal decision, the commission agrees with the conclusion of layoff by the employer.

It is also the case that the transfer does not meet the requirements for a quit, as the commission set out just over a month ago in Parish v. Adecco Employment Services, Inc., UI Dec. Hearing No. 99003656BO (LIRC Feb. 28, 2000). In that case the commission, consistent with previous practice, held in similar circumstances that the transfer was a layoff by the employer unless there was evidence both that the employer had additional work available that the employe could have performed with another client and that the employe was aware she could have declined to accept employment with the client and continued working with the employer. The record does not contain evidence regarding those factors so, pursuant to commission precedent as well, the transfer was a layoff and not a quit.

NOTE: The employer's representative asks that the administrative law judge not be assigned to hearings involving its account, asserting that he believes the administrative law judge has a bias against the temporary help industry. If a party can establish in a specific case and with concrete evidence that an administrative law judge is biased, the commission will consider such a complaint. In the present case, there is no such indication or specific assertion by the employer.

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