Wis.LIRC UC Decision: Tate, Michael - May 18, 1989 - CP 360 - Notice of Unemployment; waiver for exceptional circumstances - "exceptional circumstances" not necessarily limited to the conditions listed in dept's. rule - claim of family emergency did not justify finding "exceptional circumstances" for reason other than those listed where it was not shown that the emergency actually caused the claimant's failure to comply with the rule

BEFORE THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION

In the matter of the unemployment benefit claim of

MICHAEL L. TATE, Claimant

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 89-400367 AP

Pursuant to the timely petition for review filed in the above-captioned matter, the Commission has considered the petition and all relief requested. The Comission has reviewed the applicable records and evidence and finds that the Appeal Tribunal's findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported thereby. The Comnission therefore adopts the findings and conclusions of the Appeal Tribunal as its own.

DECISION

The decision of the Appeal Tribunal is affirmed. Accordingly, the claimant is eligible for unemployment benefits for week 51 of 1988, if he is otherwise qualified. He is ineligible for unemployment benefits in weeks 52 of 1988 through 1 of 1989.

Dated and mailed May 18, 1989
105 - CD1009 CP 360

/s/ Hugh C. Henderson, Chairman

/s/ Carl W. Thompson, Commissioner

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Section ILHR 129.01 (3) of the Wisconsin Administrative Code allows the Department to waive the requirements of Chapter ILHR 129 if exceptional circumstances exist. That section lists examples of what constitutes exceptional circumstances, including the absence of previously scheduled claimstaking facilities in or near a claimant's community, department error, and a threat by an employer to a claimant not to file a claim. The list in section ILIR 129.01 (3) is not exhaustive. The Commission believes a family emergency such as befell the claimant can, under circumstances not present, here, constitute an exceptional circumstance allowing waiver. For the waiver, however, the circumstance must cause the failure to comply with the rule in question, here the in-person reporting requirement. The Commission does not believe the claimant's family emergency precluded him from meeting the in-person reporting requirement.

The claimant picked up his mail in Appleton on December 23. The mail included a notice that the Department had suspended the employe's benefit claim and that the employe would have to report in-person in order to re-activate the claim. The employe asserted no reason why he could not have reported at that time. With regard to the claimant's family emergency, he has not shown that his presence in Des Moines was so necessary the entire time period in question as to preclude him from returning to the Appleton area in order to report to his unemployment office. In addition, the employe has asserted throughout that, during this period, he was available for work on short notice. The Commission believes that the employe likewise could have met the in-person reporting requirement, and that his family's needs did not prevent him from doing so.

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

uploaded 2003/06/11