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

STANLEY D GRUNEWALD, Employee

G  G  BARNETT TRANSPORT INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 01606176WK


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, a hearing to take testimony on the merits will be scheduled as soon as possible.

Dated and mailed December 21, 2001
grunest . usd : 178 : 8   - PC 712.3

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In his petition for commission review, the employee argues that the employer is not entitled to further hearing because past commission decisions have held that unfamiliarity with the hearing location does not constitute good cause for failure to appear for a scheduled hearing. While the commission agrees that unfamiliarity with the hearing location standing alone will not excuse a failure to appear, this employer made sufficient efforts prior to hearing to familiarize with the hearing location prior to the hearing that he established good cause.

The commission and the courts have held that good cause is something more than negligence, carelessness, or inattentiveness. Good cause may be found where there has been excusable neglect or neglect which may have been the act of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances. Each case is factually unique. In the instant case, unlike the case cited by the employee, the employer took several steps in advance of the hearing to familiarize himself with the hearing location. He downloaded a map of the area and contacted the hearing office for directions. Despite these efforts, on the day of the hearing he missed his turn and ended up at the wrong location. By the time the employer had contacted the hearing office again and was redirected, the hearing had been dismissed. The commission agrees with the ALJ that in this case the employer exercised those actions which might be expected of a reasonably prudent person under similar circumstances. Therefore, the employer's appeal is not dismissed and a hearing on the merits will be scheduled.

 


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


uploaded 2002/01/07