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

NET WORKS CONSULTING RESOURCES INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION LIABILITY DECISION
Account No. 853454, Hearing No. S0700074MD


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 employer's request for hearing on the merits is dismissed. The initial determination shall remain in effect.

Dated and mailed January 25, 2008
network7 . ssd : 145 : 1   PC 711

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The commission remanded this matter on November 16, 2007, to obtain testimony from the employer's owner about the reason he did not appear at the first hearing, and about the reason the employer's appeal was late. At the December 10, 2007, hearing the owner testified that he was unable to appear because his father had been hospitalized and the owner was at the hospital with his father. The owner had good cause for not appearing at the hearing.

With respect to the reason the employer's appeal was late, the owner testified that his mail is not delivered to his office or workplace by the post office. The owner testified that a UPS store takes care of his mail. The owner testified that he picked up the mail on a daily basis and opened it after picking it up. The employer said he normally did not have issues receiving mail from the UPS store, but the mail would sometimes be slow. The initial determination in this case was issued by the department on November 29, 2006. The initial determination in the other matter was issued on September 1, 2006. The employer indicated that although the mail was late on occasion he did not normally have problems receiving his mail. The employer made the decision to use the services of the UPS store, rather than the post office, and continued using these services despite the fact that he would receive mail late. He did not indicate that he checked with the UPS store to see why deliveries were delayed or to investigate what might have happened in this particular instance. Further, the fact that two pieces of department correspondence issued several months apart were the only items that were not delivered to him is very coincidental. It seems unlikely that the employer's lost initial determinations were the result of postal error. Rather, it is more likely that the initial determinations were lost by the UPS store. Since the employer chose to have his mail handled by the UPS store he is responsible for any omissions by his agent, in particular where he was aware, since service was sometimes slow, that there might be a problem receiving correspondence in a timely manner.

 

cc: Daniel La Rocque



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


uploaded 2008/02/04