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

CONNELL HIGGINS, Employee

VETERANS AFFAIRS, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 07601107MW


O R D E R

Wisconsin Statute § 108.09(6)(d), provides that the commission may affirm, reverse, modify or set aside the appeal tribunal decision on the basis of the evidence previously submitted, may order the taking of additional evidence, or it may remand the matter to the department for further proceedings. Pursuant to authority granted in Wis. Stat. § 108.09(6)(d), the commission sets aside the appeal tribunal decision issued on March 19, 2007, and remands this matter for a hearing and decision on whether the employer had good cause for failing to appear at the hearing, and for such further hearings and decisions as may be appropriate.

Dated and mailed June 29, 2007
higgico . usd : 132 : 1  PC 712.9

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this case, the employee/appellant appeared at the hearing but the employer/respondent did not. The employer was scheduled to appear by telephone. The ALJ called the employer's number but the employer's witness was not at the number. The day of the hearing, the employer sent a fax to the hearing office stating the employer did not appear because a medical appointment ran late. The ALJ's decision on the merits found that the employer failed to establish that the employee was discharged for misconduct. The ALJ, without further hearing, also found the employer did not have good cause for failing to attend the hearing.

The commission remands this matter because it concludes that Wis. Stat. § 108.09(4)(e), requires the hearing office to hold a hearing on whether the respondent's explanation for failing to appear at the hearing constitutes good cause for nonappearance.

In 1994, Wisconsin Statute § 108.09(4)(e), provided as follows:

A party, having failed to appear at a hearing may transmit a written excuse to the appeal tribunal which is postmarked or received by the department within 21 days after the decision was mailed to the party's last-known address. If the excuse establishes probable good cause for nonappearance, the appeal tribunal may thereafter set aside its decision and afford further opportunity to be heard, either before the same or another appeal tribunal. If the excuse does not establish probable good cause for nonappearance, the appeal tribunal may:

1. Set aside the decision and reinstate the original decision, stating the reason why the party's excuse does not establish probable good cause for nonappearance;

2. Set aside the decision and issue another decision stating the reason why the party's excuse does not establish probable good cause for nonappearance, which may include findings of fact or law at issue based upon the testimony or other evidence presented at the hearing; or

3. Issue an amended decision stating the reason why the party's excuse does not establish probable good cause for nonappearance.

1995 Wis. Act 118 repealed and recreated Wis. Stat. § § 108.09(4)(c) to (e) of the statutes. The statutory amendment resulted in the language set forth below and is the language of the statute to this day:

(e) Respondent's failure to appear:

1. If the respondent fails to appear at a hearing held under this section but the appellant is present, and due notice of the hearing was mailed to respondent's last-known address, the appeal tribunal shall hold a hearing and shall issue a decision under sub. (3)(b) unless subd. 2 applies.

2. If the respondent delivers or transmits a written explanation for nonappearance to the department which is received before a decision favorable to the respondent is mailed under subd. 1., the appeal tribunal shall acknowledge receipt of the explanation in its decision but shall take no further action concerning the explanation at that time. If the respondent delivers or transmits a written explanation for nonappearance to the department which is received before a decision unfavorable to the respondent is mailed under subd. 1., the department may so notify each party and may schedule a hearing concerning whether there was good cause for respondent's nonappearance. The department may also provisionally schedule a hearing for further testimony concerning any matter in the determination. If, after hearing testimony, the appeal tribunal finds that the respondent's explanation does not establish good cause for nonappearance, the appeal tribunal shall issue a decision containing this finding. The same or another appeal tribunal established by the department for this purpose shall also issue a decision based on the testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing at which the respondent failed to appear. If, after hearing testimony, the appeal tribunal finds that the respondent's explanation establishes good cause for nonappearance, the appeal tribunal shall issue a decision containing this finding. The same or another appeal tribunal established by the department for this purpose shall then issue a decision under sub. (3)(b) after conducting a hearing concerning any matter in the determination. If such a second hearing is held concerning any matter in the determination, the appeal tribunal shall only consider testimony and other evidence admitted at the hearing in making a decision.

(Emphasis added.) The same language is used for an appellant's failure to appear. Wis. Stat. § 108.09(4)(d).

A number of ALJs consider the use of the word "may" in Wis. Stat. § 108.09(4)(d) and (e) gives them discretion either to hold a hearing on the good cause issue or not to hold a hearing. The commission finds that the use of the word "may" simply sets forth different procedures for holding hearings and issuing decisions. For example, Wis. Stat. § 108.09(4)(d) and (e), gives the hearing office a choice of only scheduling a hearing on the good cause issue, or scheduling a hearing on the good cause and on the merits.

The department's explanation for the change was set forth in the Plain Language Summary of the Unemployment Compensation Advisory Council Agreed Upon Bill:

Amend to eliminate the bifurcated process of first making a probable good cause finding and then, if probable good cause is found, holding a good cause hearing in cases where a party files a late appeal or fails to appear at the hearing. A good cause hearing will now be held in all such cases.

REASON: Current statutes on 'failure to file a timely appeal' and 'failure to appear' establish a procedure by which the department first determines whether there is probable good cause and then, if there is, schedule a hearing to determine whether there is good cause. U.S. Department of Labor used to give a reimbursable credit for each decision (probable good cause and good cause). They have since said that a reimbursable credit is only available if a hearing is held. They clearly believe that full hearing should take place before such issues are resolved. The statutory language needs to be amended to reflect this change.

The department specifically amended Wis. Stat. § 108.09(4)(d) and (e), along with the late appeal for hearing section Wis. Stat. § 108.09(4)(c), to require good cause hearings in every case.

2003 Wisconsin Act 197 amended Wis. Stat. § 108.09(4)(c), the section that deals with the handling of explanations for filing a late request for hearing. The amendment allowed the ALJ to dismiss without a hearing if the explanation for filing a late appeal, taken as true, did not constitute a reason beyond the appellant's control. (1)   There was no similar amendment to Wis. Stat. § 108.09(4)(d) and (e).

If the department wants to have discretion in determining whether to hold a good cause hearing in non-appearance cases, it could propose an amendment to Wis. Stat. § 108.09(4)(d) and (e) as it did in 2003 for the late request for hearing provision.

cc: Maria Garza



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


Footnotes:

(1)( Back ) The department's explanation for the "technical" change was that, "Former law did not specify the circumstances under which a hearing on a late appeal would be held. New law states that an administrative law judge may dismiss the appeal without a hearing if the reasons for being late, when considered most favorably to the appellant, were not beyond the party's control." Based on the department's explanation for the 1995 amendment, former law specified that a hearing was to be held under all circumstances. The 2003 amendment set forth when a hearing would not be required. In the commission's view the Summary of 2003 changes, more accurately explains the change: "Amends the late appeal provision to clarify that the department is not required to hold a hearing on whether there was good cause for the late appeal." The July 22, 2003, UIAC minutes contain the following explanation for the change:

Agenda Item 7. Department Law Change Proposals, item 7 e. Clarifying Amendments to Late Appeal Statute. Marissa Santiago, Legal Assistant, Bureau of Legal Affairs, presented this change. This change would clarify 108.09(4)(c) the late appeals statute so that it clearly states that an Administrative Law Judge may hold a hearing on whether an appellant's reason for filing a late appeal were beyond the party's control. Current language seems to imply that a hearing will be held for all such late appeals. That is not current practice and we want to clearly codify our current procedures. This change will allow the appellant to know what actions will be taken if there is no hearing and what the basis was for not conducting a hearing. A complete law change analysis (gray, D27-03) was included in the Council's meeting packet.

 


uploaded 2007/07/05