RICHARD L GERASCH, Employee

NORTHERN PETRO SERVICES INC, Employer

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.

The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the request for hearing is dismissed, and the determination remains in effect. The employee is ineligible for benefits beginning in week 4 of 2003 and until four weeks have elapsed since the end of the week of quitting and he has earned wages in covered employment performed after the week of quitting equaling at least four times his weekly benefit rate which would have been paid had the quitting not occurred.

Dated and mailed May 21, 2003
gerasri . usd : 115 : 1  PC 712.5

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

James T. Flynn, Commissioner

The employee explains in his petition for review that he did not appear at the scheduled hearing on his appeal because he did not want to miss work at his new job while he was still on probation.

The standard for failing to appear at a hearing is "good cause." This is, a party who misses a hearing is entitled to further hearing if the party establishes good cause for its initial failure to appear. The courts have defined this standard to be "excusable neglect," that is, the neglect a reasonably prudent person might commit in similar circumstances. Kautzman v. Abraham Isaac & Jacob, UI Dec. Hearing No. 98606107MW (LIRC Dec. 23, 1998)

Failing to attend a scheduled hearing to avoid missing work does not meet the good cause standard. Garry v. Federal Express Corp. and LIRC, Case No. 98-CV- 004405 (Milw. Co. Cir. Ct., Feb. 10, 1999). In addition, while it is understandable that the employee may have faced difficulty in obtaining time off work, the least the employee could have done was to contact the hearing office to request a postponement or seek alternatives to the requirement that he appear at the time and place set. Accordingly, the commission cannot find that the employee had good cause for failing to appear at the scheduled hearing. Daly v. APAC Teleservices Inc., UI Hearing No. 98202044LX (LIRC March 31, 1999); Kinkead v. Pilot Travel Centers LLC, UI Hearing No. 02611275RC (LIRC April 10, 2003).

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

uploaded 2004/05/18