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

VANESSA JONES, Employee

YOUNG MENS CHRISTIAN ASSN OF METROPOLITAN MILWAUKEE, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 02602222MW


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 ineligible for benefits beginning in week 5 of 2002, and until seven weeks have elapsed since the end of the week of discharge and the employee has earned wages in covered employment performed after the week of discharge equaling at least 14 times the employee's weekly benefit rate which would have been paid had the discharge not occurred.

Dated and mailed November 13, 2002
jonesva . usd : 135 : 9   PC 729 

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

Laurie R. McCallum, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In her petition for commission review, the employee contends that she did not get a fair hearing because the administrative law judge (ALJ) and her employer were all from the YMCA. The employee believes the administrative law judge took sides with the employer and now requests a new hearing with a different administrative law judge.

First, the commission notes that prior to conducting the hearing, the administrative law judge indicated that he was a member of the YMCA and was acquainted with some of the parties involved. Both parties did not object to the ALJ conducting the hearing. Because the employee waived any objection prior to the hearing, the commission will not grant the employee's request for a new hearing. Furthermore, while it is understandable that the employee is unhappy with the results of the hearing, the rejection of the employee's arguments made at the hearing was based on the evidence in the record and should not be confused with bias. Additionally, in this case, the commission reviewed the record and finds no reason to believe that the administrative law judge decided the case on any basis other than the evidence that was credible. Therefore, the employee's request for further hearing is denied since there is no proof of bias by the ALJ.

The commission agrees with, and declines to overturn, the appeal tribunal decision. The commission is satisfied that the employee's attendance, including her tardiness, did not improve despite warning. The employee's repeated failure to report for work as scheduled and her frequent failure to comply with call-in requirements amounts to misconduct.


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


uploaded 2002/11/22