UI Court decision summary -- Luling, Jeanette v. Adecco North America and LIRC, Case No. 01 CV 2341 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Waukesha Co., May 10, 2002) - VL 1007.01 - Discharge, Layoff or Quit? - General; VL 1025 - Labor Supplier - Labor Supplier / Temporary Help Agency -- employee of temporary help agency voluntarily quit her employment by failing to contact employer after her assignment at client had ended

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

Subject: Jeannette L. Luling v. Adecco North America and LIRC, Case No. 01 CV 2341 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Waukesha Co., May 10, 2002)

Digest Codes: VL 1007.01 VL 1025

Luling began working for this temporary help employer in January 2001. She was assigned to GE Medical Systems as an expediter. At 4:00 p.m. on April 27, 2001, Adecco's office manager met Luling at GE and told Luling that her assignment at GE was ended because Luling had improperly used company equipment by using the internet for personal reasons. She also told Luling that she could not use Luling but that other Adecco supervisors had the discretion to use her on other assignments. The following weekend Luling changed her GE voice mail message to a message that disparaged GE. Luling applied for unemployment benefits on Monday, April 30, 2001. Luling did not call in for assignments after April 27, 2001, but sent a resume to Adecco on May 9, 2001. On May 11, 2001, Adecco told Luling that it would no longer work with her. The commission found that Luling voluntarily terminated her employment and was not eligible for unemployment benefits.

Held: Substitute teachers are not the same as individuals that work for temporary help agencies. The "current employing unit" of Barnett v. LIRC, 131 Wis. 2d 475 (CA-1986) does not apply to Luling. Luling was instructed that it was her responsibility to call in weekly for assignments but she did not do so for two weeks. Luling did not tell anyone that she had been instructed to check for assignments with other supervisors. Alternative interpretations of the evidence exist, but the testimony as a whole makes the commission's interpretation the most reasonable under the circumstances. Luling voluntarily quit her employment by failing to contact Adecco after her assignment at GE had ended. Benefits denied.

Please note that this is a summary prepared by staff of the commission, not a verbatim reproduction of the court decision.

[LIRC decision]

[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]