Roberts v. Chain Belt Co.

• Decision Date: 03 December 1957
• Citation: 2 Wis.2d 399,86 N.W.2d 406
• Parties: Don E. ROBERTS, Respondent, v. CHAIN BELT COMPANY and The Industrial Comm., Appellants.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 406

86 N.W.2d 406

2 Wis.2d 399

Don E. ROBERTS, Respondent, v. CHAIN BELT COMPANY and The Industrial Comm., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Dec. 3, 1957.

Arnold J. Spencer, Madison, for Industrial Commission.

Wood, Warner, Tyrrel & Bruce, Milwaukee, for Chain Belt Co.

Lawrence D. Gillick, Milwaukee, for respondent.

Leon B. Lamfrom, Atty., Milwaukee, for Employers Ass'n of Milwaukee, amicus curiae.

BROWN, Justice.

Roberts was a welder working for Chain Belt Company. His labor grade was number five. On September 28, 1954, there was a lack of welding work and the company offered him a transfer to the job of stock selector in labor grade eight. Roberts' pay as a welder varied from $71 to $95 per week, piecework. The stock selector job had no piecework and the pay would be $64 per week. Roberts refused the offer of the new job and demanded that he be placed on layoff under the terms of a contract between the employer and the union, which read as follows:

'Employees subject to layoff are expected to accept reasonable job offers under these provisions. Therefore, if such an employee refuses a job offer on work which he can perform no more than two labor grades lower than his original job, his seniority will be terminated. If an employee refuses such a job offer more than two labor grades lower than his original job, he will be placed on layoff.'

The employer complied with Roberts' demand. Being so laid off, Roberts applied for unemployment compensation. The company reported to the industrial commission that he was not entitled to it because he had quit work.

The material part of the statute in question reads:

'108.04 Eligibility for benefits. * * * (7) Voluntary termination of employment. (a) If an employe terminates his employment with an employer, he shall be ineligible for any benefits based on such employment, and ineligible for benefits based on other previous employment for the week of termination and the 4 next following weeks, except as hereinafter provided.

'(b) Paragraph (a) shall not apply if the commission determines that the employe terminated his employment with good cause attributable to the employer.'

The dispute was investigated by a deputy of the commission who decided that Roberts terminated his employment but not with good cause attributable to the employer, and was not eligible for unemployment compensation.

At Roberts' request the commission's appeal tribunal conducted a hearing, after which it found, and the full commission affirmed, that the transfer of work was reasonable and Roberts was physically qualified to perform the work; that

'* * * pursuant to the above quoted contract provision his union job seniority with the employer was not affected by his refusal to accept a transfer to the job in question. His job seniority continued despite his refusal to accept the transfer of work. However, such contract provision relates to job seniority only and is not controlling as to the question of his eligibility for benefits under the unemployment compensation act.'

'* * * In the instant case the transfer of work in question was reasonable and the employe was physically qualified to perform the work.'

It concluded:

'Under the circumstances the employe's refusal to accept a reasonable transfer of employment was action inconsistent with a continuing employer-employe relationship and constituted a termination of his employment.'

The order of the commission denied Roberts' application for unemployment benefits and he brought this action for review by the circuit court. The judgment of the circuit court reversed the order of the commission and directed the...