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


Subject: Keith Hurckman vs. LIRC and B & M Transport, Case No. 03 CV 241 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Dodge County, July 24, 2003)

Digest Codes: VL 1005.01    VL 1080.05 

Hurckman worked for the employer as a semi-trailer driver from February 28,2002, through July 10, 2002. He mostly drove to the West coast on trips averaging 8 to 9 days and was paid a percent of the load. His wife rode with him as a passenger. Effective July 1, 2002, the employer reorganized its business including changing insurance carriers. The new insurer does not allow non-employee passengers in the trucks it insures.

Hurckman was on the road on July 1, 2002. On July 11, 2002, the employer advised Hurckman that his wife could no longer ride with him. Hurckman told the employer he thought that would not work for him and that he would call the next day. The employer had a load for Hurckman to pick up on July 12, 2002. Hurckman did not call the employer but come to the office on July 12 and cleaned out his truck. The commission's decision found that Hurckman voluntarily quit his employment and not for any exception to the quit disqualification.

Held: Two of the commission's findings may not have been supported by credible and substantial evidence. One is the statement that the employer did not hire Hurckman with the understanding that his wife wold always accompany him. The second is that Hurckman never raised the objection directly with the employer prior to giving notice of quitting. However, the real issue is the commission's application of the statutory standard. The court believes the commission interprets the standard too narrowly. The commission appears to say that because the employer did not breach the employment agreement and had a legitimate reason for changing its rider policy, Hurckman can not have good cause for quitting. The statutory term "good cause" qualifies the employee's actions, not the employer's. The exception is simply meant to exclude quit decisions that are not reasonable reactions to an act by an employer. It simply requires that the quit decision be a reasonable reaction to some act by an employer. Although the employer was completely within its legal rights, "good cause" does not turn on the legality or even the commercial reasonableness of the employer's conduct. A reasonable employer should have known that the change would make continued employment intolerable to Hurckman. Therefore Hurckman's quitting was with good cause attributable to the employer.


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 ]


uploaded 2003/11/24