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

ASHLEY D HAHN, Employee

MILLER & MILLER PROPERTIES INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 10201594GB


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 for weeks 16 through 24 of 2010, but she is eligible as of week 25 of 2010, if she is otherwise qualified. Benefits paid to the employee in error as a result of the employer's failure to provide correct and complete information will be charged to the employer's account. There is no overpayment of benefits as a result of this decision.

Dated and mailed October 25, 2010
hahnas . usd : 178 : 2 BR 319

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairperson

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In its petition for commission review, the employer argues that it had good cause for failing to timely respond to the department's request for more information regarding the end of the employee's employment. In particular, it argues that phone calls from the department are usually followed up by letters giving seven days to respond. It also states that it earlier had supplied a letter alleging that the employee told three co-workers of her intention to get herself fired so that she could collect unemployment.

The department is required by law to promptly resolve eligibility issues and pay benefits when due. The employer was aware that an eligibility issue was pending because it responded to the initial separation notice from the department. However, the employer's responsibility did not end at that point. The department called the number given by the employer as a contact number and the 48 hour response period was a reasonable one. If the employer's representative knew that she would be unavailable for a length of time, then she needed to arrange for backup. The employer did not demonstrate good cause for its failure to promptly respond to the department's request for further information. Therefore, the benefits erroneously paid to the employee based on this failure will remain charged to the employer's account.



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


uploaded 2010/11/02