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


Subject: Theodore J. Richter vs. LIRC and CPP-Pinkerton's, Case No. 03 CV 008710 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Milwaukee County, June 30, 2004)

full text available here

Digest Codes: VL 1005.01  VL 1059.20 

Richter started working for Pinkerton’s in February 1999. He was assigned to work at the Bank One building in downtown Milwaukee, a 22 story building. He worked full-time and was paid $10.93 per hour.

On October 16, 2002, Pinkerton’s advised Richter that it had lost that account and would reassign him to another account. Pinkerton’s showed Richter the available jobs on October 24, 2002, and offered him a choice of 14 different positions on December 2, 2002. The Bank One contract ended on December 5, 2002, and Richter declined all of the offered positions on December 6, 2002.

Richter argued that a reduction in pay from $10.93 to $10.00 per hour and the loss of supervisory responsibilities justified his refusal of the offered assignments. The commission found that the changes did not give him good cause to quit. The decrease in pay was not substantial enough to justify a decision to become unemployed and the employer’s handbook alerted Richter to potential changes when assignments changed. The commission found that Richter voluntarily terminated his employment and that his quitting was not for good cause attributable to the employer.

Held: Although Richter argues that the cost of health insurance that he would be required to pay increases his real wage loss, the record does not indicate the dollar amount he would be required to pay. The court will not consider evidence not offered to the commission. The court has no reason to conclude that the commission did not consider the drop in skill level in making its decision. The court gives great weight deference to the commission’s decision. Here the commission could reasonably find that all the factors involved did not justify the decision to terminate employment. The statute is not intended to provide relief when reasonable work is available that the employee can but will not do. Commission decision affirmed.
 


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 ]