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


Subject: Allan C. Roach v. LIRC & Schneider National Carriers Inc., Case 01-CV-919 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Washington Co., June 3, 2002)

Digest Codes: VL 1016   PC 749 

The employee and his brother owned a truck which they leased to the employer and used to haul loads for it. The lease agreement designated the employee as an independent contractor, but the department determined that he was an employee. During the entire month of February of 2001, the employee was unavailable for driving assignments from the employer. He and his brother were in the process of losing their truck to bankruptcy proceedings, and in addition, his brother was experiencing medical problems. The employee and his brother decided to resign their "independent contractor" employment with the employer and attempt to be rehired as company drivers to drive the employer’s trucks. After he had resigned, the employee left messages with the employer asking to be rehired as a company driver, but he never was.

The appeal tribunal and the commission found that the employee had quit his employment, and not within any exception to Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(a). The employee argued that he had not actually resigned but was just waiting to see whether he and his brother could retain ownership of their truck. He also argued that the commission was collaterally estopped from finding that he quit, because in a separate UI proceeding, his brother was found to have been discharged but not for misconduct.

Held: The commission is affirmed. There is no question but that the employee quit. The employee's quitting may have been caused by various problems, such as his brother's illness or financial problems, but that does not change the fact that he quit.   The employee's decisions may have been reasonable ones, but he ultimately resigned his position by not showing up for work or being available to drive for an entire month.  Given the status of his vehicle he would not have been able to continue working.   

The record before the commission is limited to the proceeding involving this employee, not his brother.  The court is limited to and bound by that record.  In every proceeding there is a burden of proof to be met.  In every proceeding there must be evidence introduced to satisfy that burden.  Here, the evidence supports the commission's decision.  Collateral estoppel is not applicable.  Issues that may or may not have been litigated in his brother's hearing, may or may not have been fully litigated in the case below.  The status of the cases may not be the same.  Each case is separate and must be decided on its own merits. 


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 ]