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

JODI STOKLASA, Employee

ALL MODES ACQUISITION CORP, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 10602978MW


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 request for hearing is dismissed. The initial determination remains in effect.

Dated and mailed September 17, 2010
stokljo . usd : 164 : 1 PC 712.4 : PC 712

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairperson

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In her petition for commission review the employee argues that she never stated her phone had the call blocking feature activated for the January 29 hearing date and that that feature was added later. The employee submits a copy of her telephone bill which she contends shows the hearing office did not call her for the January 29 hearing. The employee also contends that the hearing office is the one that used call blocking.

The employee's arguments fail. The commission listened to the digital recording of the January 29 hearing which revealed that the administrative law judge made three attempts to reach the employee by telephone, but received the following message on each occasion:

"Your call will not be completed because the party you are trying to reach is not accepting calls from callers who do not allow delivery of their caller ID information."

The administrative law judge waited fifteen minutes to see if the employee would attempt to contact the hearing office, but she did not do so within that time. The employee did not submit a copy of her January 29 telephone bill at the procedural hearing and that document is not in the record. The commission notes, however, that the incoming calls from the hearing office would not be reflected on the employee's telephone bill where the calls could not be completed and were never received by the employee. The evidence indicates that the employee did have an activated call blocking feature on her telephone which prevented the administrative law judge from reaching her for the January 29 hearing. Further, the employee continued to have that feature activated at the time of the April 29 hearing, thereby preventing the administrative law judge from contacting her for the procedural hearing she requested. The commission agrees with the appeal tribunal that the employee's failure to appear under these circumstances was not with good cause. Accordingly, the appeal tribunal decision is affirmed.



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


uploaded 2010/11/02