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

ERIC ANDERSON, Employee

WOOD GOODS INDUSTRIES INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 08200566EC


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 is ineligible for benefits beginning in week 6 of 2008, and until four weeks have elapsed since the end of the week of quitting and the employee has earned wages in covered employment performed after the week of quitting equaling at least four times the employee's weekly benefit rate which would have been paid had the quitting not occurred.

Dated and mailed June 12, 2008
anderer . usd : 164 : 1
PC 714 . 05 ; PC 729

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairperson

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In his petition for commission review the employee requests a new, in person, hearing. The employee argues that the employer's witness lied throughout the hearing and that the fact it was a telephone hearing made it easier for him to do so. However, the department routinely conducts telephone hearings particularly where, as here, the geographical distance between the parties and the hearing location warrants it. While being able to observe a witness' demeanor may be helpful, it is not critical to a fair hearing. To the contrary, there are many other ways in which the administrative law judge and commission can assess credibility, such as by noting the witness' tone of voice, pauses, tendency to be direct or evasive, and by considering inconsistencies in the testimony that may call its credibility into question. The commission sees no reason to believe that the fact the hearing was conducted by telephone in any way deprived the employee of a fair hearing.

In his petition the employee also argues that he reported his injuries, but the employer never wrote an accident report. He states that he followed the rules in the employer's handbook, but the employer would not accept his doctor's note and wrote him up. The employee states this is just not right. This argument fails. The evidence indicates that the employee quit after receiving an attendance warning from the employer. While the employee may have disagreed that the warning was warranted, given that he presented a doctor's note, the employer has a no-fault attendance policy in which even absences due to illness are counted. Moreover, as the appeal tribunal noted in its decision, the employer had reason to question the employee's explanation for his absences. The employee's actions in giving the employee a warning that it would not tolerate further absences cannot be considered a fault on the part of the employer that would provide the employee with good cause to quit. Accordingly, the appeal tribunal decision is affirmed.



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


uploaded 2008/06/20