STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION
P O BOX 8126, MADISON, WI 53708-8126 (608/266-9850)


JEFFREY L SCHICKER, Employee

MIDAS MUFFLER SHOP, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 00608177MW


An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Division of Unemployment Insurance of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and conclusion in that decision as its own.

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee is eligible for benefits, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed December 12, 2000
schicje.usd : 105 : 1  PC 713

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The commission has affirmed the appeal tribunal decision in this case, for the following reasons. First, the normal procedural practice is for a new issue to be taken up initially at the investigation/initial determination level. One reason for this is efficiency; there are something like 200,000 initial determinations issued each year, and only less than 40,000 appeal tribunal decisions. This means that the vast majority of contests are settled at the initial determination level, a level which has much less formality than the hearing level. The employer has indicated no compelling reason why the standard procedure is inappropriate for this case, and the commission also sees none.

Second, in fact the hearing notice did not list the issue the employer wants resolved. The hearing notice concerned whether the separation was a suspension under Wis. Stat. § 108.04(1)(b)1 and whether the employee then was "able and available" for work. That is a different issue from whether an employee has good cause for refusing an offer of work under Wis. Stat. § 108.04(8). As is evident from examination of the hearing notice, the latter statute was not listed as one in dispute.

For these reasons, and those stated in the appeal tribunal decision, the commission has affirmed that decision.

cc: MUFFLERS OF BROOKFIELD INC

ATTORNEY DANIEL E GOLDBERG
LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL E GOLDBERG SC


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