Jones v. Board of Review of Dept. of Labor

• Decision Date: 30 August 1985
• Docket Number: D,No. 88,No. 2-84-0519,88,2-84-0519
• Citation: 482 N.E.2d 1131,136 Ill.App.3d 64,90 Ill.Dec. 848
• Parties: , 90 Ill.Dec. 848 John JONES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOARD OF REVIEW OF the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Defendant-Appellant, and DuPage Community High School Districtefendant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 1131

482 N.E.2d 1131

136 Ill.App.3d 64, 90 Ill.Dec. 848

John JONES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOARD OF REVIEW OF the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Defendant-Appellant and DuPage Community High School District No. 88, Defendant.

No. 2-84-0519.

Appellate Court of Illinois Second District.

Aug. 30, 1985.

Neil F. Hartigan, James P. Nally and Jill Wine-Banks, Chicago, for defendant-appellant.

Prairie State Legal Services, Jerry Brask, Wheaton, and William R. Rath, LaGrange, for plaintiff-appellee.

STROUSE, Justice:

Defendant, Board of Review of the Department of Labor, appeals the trial court's reversal of the Board of Review's decision which found plaintiff, John Jones, ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits because of his voluntary termination without good cause. Plaintiff argues that he left with good cause because of unreasonable changes in his employment imposed by his employer.

Jones had been a carpenter for 35 years when he responded to a newspaper advertisement for a carpenter/cabinet maker for DuPage Community High School District No. 88. He was asked at his interview whether he could build cabinets. He was hired by the school district and was so employed from July 10, 1979, through January 14, 1982. During the last three or four months of working for the school district, Jones was assigned to many tasks which were not carpentry-related, such as electrical wiring, unloading trucks, repairing locks, removing a squirrel cage from a vent, looking for a lost cassette recorder, and knocking down a cement block wall. Jones complained to his immediate supervisor and to his foreman who told him he had to do the assigned work. Jones complained of "poor supervision" and "confusion" which he identified as the reasons for quitting in his resignation letter. Jones testified about work which he felt wasted money and involved duplicative efforts. In October 1981, a new carpenter was hired for the second shift (although Jones had asked to be assigned to that shift), and most of the carpentry-related tasks were delegated to the second shift.

Defendant claims that Jones was hired as a carpenter/maintenance person. The school district's assistant business manager testified that Jones was hired as a carpenter/maintenance person, although he was not sure if Jones knew this, since Jones had been hired by the previous assistant business manager. No job description for Jones's position was presented into evidence.

Section 601 A of the Act provides, in relevant part, that a claimant "shall be ineligible for benefits for the week in which he has left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the employing unit * * *." (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 48, par. 431 A.) The statute, however, does not define "good cause." The term "good cause" as used in section 601 A of the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act has been construed in the recent case of Burke v. Board of Review, Illinois Department of Labor (1985), 132 Ill.App.3d 1094, 87 Ill.Dec. 823, 477 N.E.2d 1351. Burke, however, was not concerned with a change in work conditions. Accord Hamilton v. Board of Review of the Department of Labor (1985), 136 Ill.App.3d 50, 54, 90 Ill.Dec. 843, 482 N.E.2d 1126.

This court has determined that Pennsylvania's unemployment compensation statute is similar to the Illinois enactment and has relied upon Pennsylvania jurisprudence in adjudicating cases concerning "voluntary leaving" under section 601 A. See, e.g., Minfield v. Bernardi (1984), 122 Ill.App.3d 97, 102-03, 77 Ill.Dec. 462, 460 N.E.2d 766; Keystone Steel & Wire Division, Keystone Consolidated Industries v. Department of Labor (1976), 37 Ill.App.3d 704, 706-08, 346 N.E.2d 399.

A substantial and unilateral change in the employment may render the employment unsuitable so that good cause for voluntary termination is established. Davis v. Board of Review of the Department of Labor (1984), 125 Ill.App.3d 67, 72, 80 Ill.Dec. 464, 465 N.E.2d 576; see National Aluminum Corp. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (1981), 59 Pa.Commw. 359, 429 A.2d 1259, 1260 (1981) (the gradual replacement of secretarial duties by clerical duties constituted substantial and unilateral change); Krzyston v. Industrial Com. of Ohio (1977), 52 Ohio App.2d 109, 368 N.E.2d 74, 75-76 (secretary was given additional duties beyond her capacity); Kistler v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (1980), 52 Pa.Commw. 465, 416 A.2d 594, 597 (presumption of suitability of work conditions which arises upon acceptance of employment can...