Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Koetje v Teamwork 13.21

Section 29(1)(e)

REFUSAL OF WORK, Suitable work, Wage differential, Child care, Availability, Shift limitation

CITE AS: Koetje v Teamwork, unpublished per curiam Court of Appeals May 26, 1998 (No. 200118).

Appeal pending: No

Claimant: Marie Koetje

Employer: Teamwork, Inc.

Docket No. B95-09004-137801

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: 1) A substantially similar position paying approximately 20% less is not unsuitable. 2) The fact that an employee might incur additional child care expenses because of a shift change does not provide good cause for refusal of suitable employment. 3) By limiting herself to first shift work, the claimant was not fully available.

FACTS: The claimant applied for work with the involved employer and was assigned to a client as a general factory laborer. Wages for the assignment began at $8.00 per hour and increased to $9.49 three months later. They remained at that level until her assignment terminated. Shortly thereafter the employer offered to place the claimant in a similar position on second shift at a rate of $7.80 per hour. The claimant declined the assignment, indicating that not only would the second shift assignment require her to incur day care expenses for both her children but would pay her less. Subsequently, another position was offered to the claimant at $7.00 per hour which she also declined.

DECISION: The claimant was disqualified under 29(1)(e) and held ineligible under Section 28(1)(c).

RATIONALE: 1) The two offers of work at a reduced wage "were appropriate given [claimant's] qualifications and previous experience as well as the available job market." 2) Under the circumstances the need for additional child care did not provide the claimant with good cause as the Department of Social Services would have helped her defray any additional expenses. 3) One who restricts her employment to certain hours of the day is not "available" for work if the work for which she is qualified is not likewise limited.

Note: The court declined to consider the length of claimant's unemployment when evaluating the suitability of the work offered. Also, Section 29(6) of the Act has been amended since the facts of this case arose.


24, 16, d12: N/A

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page