Wis.LIRC UC Decision: Vogel, Lyle - November 22, 1991 - PC 712.6 Hearing, failure to appear - where employe-appellant walked out of hearing before giving sufficient evidence to support his case, and employer had appeared and had not yet had opportunity to cross-examine the employe, walk-out treated as a "failure to appear" by the employe-appellant

BEFORE THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION

In the matter of the unemployment benefit claim of

LYLE R. VOGEL, Employee

Involving the account of

ALBERT TROSTEL PACKINGS LTD, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 91-004482 JV

Pursuant to the timely petition for review filed in the above-captioned matter, the Commission has considered the petition and all the relief requested. The Commission 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 Commission therefore adopts the findings and conclusions of the Appeal tribunal as its own.

DECISION

The decision of the Appeal Tribunal is affirmed. Accordingly, the employe's appeal is dismissed. The Initial Determination shall remain in effect.

Dated and mailed November 22, 1991
132 - CD1045 PC 712.6

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Chairman

/s/ Richard T. Kreul, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In the petition for review, the employe states that he was upset by the rudeness and bad attitude of the Administrative Law Judge and that the Administrative Law Judge did not give him a chance to explain his side of things but kept asking why he did not buy his own glasses. The Commission has reviewed the hearing tape in this matter and disagrees that the Administrative Law Judge was either rude to the employe or that the Administrative Law Judge prevented the employe from explaining his side of the story. Granted the Administrative Law Judge did question the employe as to why he did not purchase his own glasses, however, before a complete answer could be given by the employe the employe chose to leave the hearing room. The employe therefore failed to present testimony sufficient to determine the reason behind his voluntary quitting and did not afford the employer the opportunity to cross-examine him regarding his testimony. In addition, because the employe chose to leave the hearing, the employer was not afforded the opportunity to present testimony. While the employe seeks to explain the circumstances surrounding the separation of employment in his petition, those are the facts he could and should have presented at the hearing. He chose not to. For the above reasons, the Commission agrees with the Appeal Tribunal that the employe failed to appear at the hearing, within the meaning of section 108.09(4) of the Statutes and Chapter ILHR 140 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.

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

uploaded 2004/02/18