Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission --
Summary of Wisconsin Court Decision relating to Unemployment Insurance
Subject: R. A. Danco, Ltd. (Hearing No. 96605513WK) v. LIRC and Nancy A. Guarniere, Case 97-CV-000020 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Waukesha Co., July 1, 1997)
Digest Codes: VL 1059.20The employe worked for over ten years for the employer, a convenience store, most recently as an assistant manager. In September 1995, the employer provided the employe with the use of a leased automobile, which she was supposed to use to travel to and from work. The employer asserted that the employe was informed that the vehicle would serve as a replacement for her vacation pay in 1996, although there was a possibility that she might receive some vacation pay at the end of 1996. The employe asserted that she was not told the vehicle was to replace her vacation pay.
The employe took two weeks of vacation in July 1996. Towards the end of the vacation, she had a conversation with the employer wherein she was told that she would not be receiving any vacation pay, although there was a possibility that she might receive it at the end of the year. The parties again dispute the details of this conversation, with the employer asserting that this was not a surprise to the employe, and the employe asserting that it was. The employe quit the day after having this conversation with the employer.
The commission found that before she went on vacation, the employe was entitled to notice that she would not receive vacation pay. The commission noted that the employe was credible in testifying that the employer did not tell her the leased auto was to replace her vacation pay. The commission found a quit with good cause attributable.
Held: Affirmed. The commission found there was credible evidence to support the commissions conclusion that before she took vacation, the employe was entitled to notice that her vacation pay was to be eliminated. The judge editorialized concerning her displeasure with an administrative process which allows telephone hearings, going so far as to state that telephone hearings should not be permitted.
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 ]