Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission --
Summary of Wisconsin Court Decision relating to Unemployment Insurance


Subject: John P. Bierchen v. Rite Way Auto Body and LIRC , Case No. 02-CV-1618 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Dane Co., December 10, 2002)

full text available here

Digest Codes: VL 1005.01  VL 1059.20  VL 1080.268   VL 1034

Claimant, an auto body technician whose pay, although called a "commission", was based on the number of hours he worked, was told by his employer he would no longer be doing painting but would be concentrated on auto body repair. Because of an earlier time when he was removed from painting and his earnings dropped, the claimant objected, but his employer told him that additional auto body work would be provided to him to make up for the loss of painting assignments. Despite this reassurance, claimant continued to believe that the change was unfair, and he eventually quit. An initial determination found the quit was for good cause attributable to the employer, but after a hearing on the employer's appeal, an ALJ reversed this determination and found that the claimant's quitting disqualified him from benefit eligibility.  LIRC affirmed the ALJ and upheld the denial, concluding that claimant had not had good cause to quit because, apart from his mere suspicions, he had not demonstrated that his earnings would drop. LIRC held that the claimant should have tried the new arrangement to test his assumption that his wages would go down. The claimant then appealed to circuit court.

Held:  LIRC's decision is affirmed. The Court agrees that in the circumstances here the claimant did not have good cause to quit. In addition, the Court rejects the claimant's arguments (not made to LIRC), that his quitting was within the exceptions in § 108.04(7)(e), for quitting within 10 weeks a job that could have been refused, and 108.04(7)(f), for quitting in response to a transfer to work paying less than two-thirds of the preceding wage rate. Claimant was not offered "new work" or a new job but simply had a change in some of his duties. Also, he was not transferred to a different job, and in any event did not demonstrate that his earnings would drop to less than 2/3 of what he had been earning.


Please note that this is a summary prepared by staff of the commission, not a verbatim reproduction of the court decision.

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