PETAR CUK, Employee
MG SYSTEMS & WELDING INC., Employer
The Commission Decision dated November 9, 2006, dismissed the employee's petition for commission review because it was filed six days late. Although the employee gave as the reason for being late the fact that he was out of the country for "family problems," the commission reasoned that it was his responsibility to have a mechanism in place for monitoring and responding to time-sensitive documents from the department mailed to his address of record during his absence. The employee filed a request for reconsideration (copy included with employer's copy of this decision) in which he further explained that the purpose of his trip to Croatia had been because his mother had died. He also stated that he has no relatives or others who could have monitored his mail while he was away.
Pursuant to its authority under Wis. Stat. § 108.09(6)(b), and upon further consideration, the commission determines that the employee's petition for commission review was late for a reason beyond his control, within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.09(6)(a). The commission further determines that the employee's absence from the country during the time period of July 31, 2006, through October 3, 2006, gave him good cause for not appearing at the hearing scheduled for September 5, 2006.
Accordingly, the commission makes the following:
The appeal tribunal decision dated September 7, 2006, which dismissed the employee's request for hearing because of his non-appearance at the hearing, is also set aside. This matter is remanded for a hearing and decision on the question of whether the employee was discharged from his employment for misconduct connected with his employment
Dated and mailed November 30, 2006
cukpeta : 180 : PC 712.1
PC 731
/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman
/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner
/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner
This action by the commission places the case in the same status it had subsequent to the prior Order by the commission, dated August 11, 2006. That Order remanded the case for a new hearing and decision, based on the employer's petition for commission review alleging that the employee, in a complaint to the Equal Rights Division, made statements that appear to conflict with testimony he gave at his unemployment hearing.
The commission takes this action because it is persuaded on reconsideration that the employee's documented absence from the country at the time of the scheduled remand hearing gave him good cause for missing that hearing and a reason beyond his control for not appealing the dismissal based on his non-appearance in time. Although in most cases the commission requires parties to unemployment insurance matters to arrange to have time-sensitive mail monitored in their absence while their case is active, exceptions are warranted in situations in which an individual credibly asserts the unavailability of anyone to assume that function for them.
cc: Petar Cuk
[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]
uploaded 2006/12/04