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

ROBERT M DAHSE, Employee

BAKEMARK, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 10606362MW


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 eligible for benefits, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed November 24, 2010
dahsero . usd : 164 : 1 PC 712.4 : PC 712.5

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairperson

Robert Glaser, Commissioner

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In the petition for commission review the employer's agent argues that its only witness was located in California and that, although it requested permission for her to appear by telephone, that request was denied. The employer's agent states that the employer would appreciate an opportunity to present its side of this matter. The commission construes this as a request for further hearing. While the commission does have the discretion to order the taking of additional evidence in matters before it, that authority is exercised only in a few exceptional circumstances, and the commission sees no reason to do so in this case. The hearing notice specified that the hearing would be in person and that witnesses should attend in person. Given this instruction, the employer was not justified in assuming that its witness would be able to appear by telephone. Moreover, if the employer wished to make special arrangements for a witness to appear by telephone, it was obligated to do so expeditiously. The hearing notice was issued ten days prior to the hearing, and the employer has failed to explain why it waited until the day of the hearing to make its request. Under the circumstances, the commission sees no reason to order further hearing in this matter, and will base its review on the evidence that is already in the record. Because the evidence adduced at the hearing failed to establish that the employee was discharged for misconduct, the appeal tribunal decision is affirmed.

cc: Bakemark (Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin)


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


uploaded 2011/01/14