TAMMI J PHILLIPS, Employee

SUPERCUTS, 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 employee is ineligible for benefits beginning in week 15 of 2004, 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. The employee is required to repay the sum of $1,739 to the Unemployment Reserve Fund.

Dated and mailed September 3, 2004
phillta . usd : 115 : 1   MC 630.09 PC 715

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

The commission has always placed special emphasis on the integrity of an employer's time/payroll system. See, e.g., Morales v. Prime Care Health Plan, UI Hearing No. 97605882MW (LIRC Aug. 26, 1998); Poindexter v. Northwest General Hospital, UI Hearing No. 98606560MW (LIRC Jan. 27, 1999). Here, the employee has failed to explain why she edited her work hours on the employer's system without prior supervisory approval two days after receiving a warning that this was prohibited and that a recurrence would result in termination. This supports a conclusion of misconduct.

The employee essentially argues in her petition for commission review that further hearing is merited due to the employer's failure to respond to her requests for information prior to hearing. However, parties have no right to engage in prehearing discovery in unemployment insurance cases. Anderson v. Fleet and Farm of Green Bay, Inc., UI Hearing No. 01002683 (LIRC Oct. 10, 2001). The employee was given the opportunity to examine the evidence offered by the employer at hearing and to respond to it, and this is all that is required or contemplated by the unemployment insurance administrative hearing process. See, Anderson, supra. The employee was aware of the basis for the discharge at the time it occurred, and was aware, while she was still employed and still had access to the employer's database, of the source of the employer's concern, but was unprepared at hearing to explain her actions. No further hearing is merited in this matter.

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

uploaded 2004/09/08