Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission --
Summary of Wisconsin Court Decision relating to Unemployment Insurance
Subject: Richard A. Commander (Hearing No. 93002268MD) v. LIRC and City Janitorial Service, Inc., (No. 93-CV-3637Wis. Cir. Ct. Dane County March 25, 1994, Daniel R. Moeser, Circuit Judge.), No. 94-1442, Wis. Ct. App., District 4, October 5, 1995 (unpublished)
Please note that Wis. Stat. § 809.23(3) provides that an unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals is of no precedential value and for that reason may not be cited in any court in this state as precedent or authority. Summaries of unpublished Court of Appeals decisions are included in this collection as an informational service only, and their use contrary to 809.23(3) is not encouraged.
Digest Codes: VL 1039.09
The employe worked as a janitor on an hourly basis beginning in August 1992. He worked 30 hours per week until January 6, 1993, when his hours were reduced at his request so that he could accept a full time job. He was discharged from the full-time job on January 14, 1993. His request to the employer to return to 30 hours per week was refused. His last day of work for the employer was February 28, 1993. He advised the employer by telephone on March 5, 1993, that he was quitting. The commission denied his application for unemployment benefits on the grounds that he quit. The circuit court affirmed the commissions decision.
Held: A voluntary quit does not disqualify an employe who quits part-time work if the loss of the full-time work makes it economically unfeasible for the employe to continue the part-time work. The commission did not address this statutory criteria, instead holding that it did not apply because the employments were not related. This is not a statutory criteria and the commission has no authority to impose it. Therefore the matter is remanded to the commission to determine if the two criteria set forth in Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(k) have been satisfied. The employe is also to be allowed an opportunity to provide evidence that he was otherwise eligible for benefits after losing his full-time job. That evidence had been improperly excluded at the hearing.
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 ]