DIGEST OF ADJUDICATION PRECEDENTS VL
VL-77 (02/08)
ISSUE/DIGEST Voluntary Leaving/VL 495.05
DOCKET/DATE 85-BRD-04668/6-25-85
AUTHORITY Section 601A of the Act
TITLE Voluntary
SUBTITLE Distinguished from Lay Off
CROSS-REFERENCE None
The claimant had been employed as an Electrician for twenty-two years. His son was a co-worker. The employer planned to lay off
the claimant's son as part of a reduction in its work force due to economic conditions. The claimant, feeling that he could better
afford being laid off than a younger man with a family, requested to be laid off in the place of his son. The employer consented
and the claimant became separated from employment.
HELD: This was not a voluntary leaving, but a lay off. Viewing the total picture, it was not decisive that it was the claimant and
not his son who became unemployed. Although the claimant chose to accept the lay off in the place of his son, it was the employer
which affected the reduction in force, and the claimant's decision had no impact on the number of unemployed, since, had he not
decided to accept the lay off in his son's stead, his son would have been laid off. Because this was a lay off resulting from
economic conditions beyond the claimant's control, he was in that class of unemployed persons for whom the Act was designed to
provide benefits.
ISSUE/DIGEST Voluntary Leaving/VL 495.05
DOCKET/DATE 85-BRD-62-FE/6-25-85
AUTHORITY Section 601A & 602A of the Act
TITLE Voluntary
SUBTITLE Definition
CROSS-REFERENCE MC 135.1, Discharge or Leaving, Constructive Discharge
The claimant was employed by the United States government, as a clerk-typist, in West Germany. She was a "dependent spouse,"
working during her husband's tour of military duty in that country. When her husband's tour of duty ended, and he was transferred
back to the United States, the claimant left her Clerk-Typist position, submitting a letter of resignation. Later, she testified that her
resignation had been a formality only: Army personnel rules directed that a dependent spouse was not permitted to remain in a
foreign country upon her husband's transfer.
HELD: The claimant had no option to remain at work, due to the rules promulgated by her employer. Therefore, she did not leave
work voluntarily, and no disqualification for benefits under Section 601A could be imposed.
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Voluntary Leaving/VL 495.05
DOCKET/DATE CTA v. IDES/11-22-95
AUTHORITY Section 601A of the Act
TITLE Voluntary
SUBTITLE End of a Temporary Assignment
CROSS-REFERENCE None
The claimant worked in a summer-only program administered by the CTA, then, at the expiration of the program, applied for
unemployment benefits. It was argued that she should be denied benefits because, by agreeing to the terms of the summer
employment program, she represented that she did not want to work beyond the summer, and that this constituted a voluntary
leaving.
HELD: It is an erroneous view that the voluntary leaving provisions of Section 601A apply to those employees who are separated
from the work force upon the expiration of predetermined contract terms. Section 601A does not contain an express
disqualification of employees hired for a specified term (nor does the Act otherwise disqualify workers who are hired for
temporary positions and find themselves unemployed upon the expiration of the employment term). Where the employment terms
imposed by the employer allow the employee no alternative but to relinquish a position, the separation is not voluntary, and the
disqualifying provisions of Section 601A do not apply.
