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

JOSHUA D CORDES, Employee

CHUCK'S PLACE INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 05602031MW


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's request for hearing is dismissed, and the department determination remains in effect.

Dated and mailed April 26, 2005
cordejo . usd : 115 : 4  PC 711

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

David B. Falstad, Commissioner

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION


In the determination at issue here, dated February 17, 2005, with an appeal deadline of March 3, 2005, the department denied benefits to the employee based on the conclusion that he had quit with no qualifying exception.

In a determination dated February 25, 2005, with an appeal deadline of March 11, 2005, the department concluded that the employee had requalified for benefits. In this determination, the following is stated: "Benefits are allowed with respect to this issue only. Actual payment of benefits will depend on the resolution of another issue."

The employee's appeal was postmarked March 11, 2005, and received by the department on March 14, 2005. In his appeal, the employee explains that he was confused by the two determinations, and had not met the first appeal deadline because he believed that the second determination which allowed benefits had superseded the first.

The commission has consistently held that employees who received a subseqent determination stating without qualification that benefits were allowed, during the appeal period for an earlier determination denying benefits, had a reason beyond their control for failing to file a timely appeal of the earlier determination. See, Zyla v. Stock Lumber Inc., UI Hearing No. 96601492MW (LIRC May 23, 1996); Erspamer v. Adecco Employment Services Inc., UI Hearing No. 99400574GB (LIRC June 7, 1999); Wiles v. US Paper Converters Inc., UI Hearing No. 02401090AP (LIRC April 23, 2002).

The commission explained its rationale for this approach in Oonk v. La Macchia Enterprises, Inc., UI Hearing No. 04601033MW (LIRC April 13, 2004), when it stated:

Essentially, the previous cases stand for the proposition that the most recent ruling from the department is controlling, and that a party may reasonably rely upon that ruling unless the department indicates that that ruling is specific to the issue resolved in the determination or otherwise not controlling with regard to the employee's overall unemployment insurance claim.

The second determination under consideration here did not, however, state without qualification that benefits were allowed. Instead, this determination stated both that the ruling was specific to the issue under consideration in the second determination, as well as that actual payment of benefits would depend upon the resolution of another issue, i.e., that it was not controlling with regard to the employee's overall unemployment insurance claim. As a result, consistent with the principle enunciated in Oonk, supra., the employee's failure to timely appeal the first determination, based upon the result in the second determination, was not reasonable, and this case is akin to those in which the commission has held that it was within the employee's control, and his responsibility, to contact the department if he had questions about the interplay of two communications. See, e.g., Sorenson v. Veit Environmental, Inc., UI Hearing No. 02007239MD (LIRC April 11, 2003).



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


uploaded 2005/05/02