CARRIE L FERNANDEZ, Employee

DOOR COUNTY CHILD CARE SERVICES INC, Employer

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.

The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee's request for hearing on the merits is dismissed. The initial determination shall remain in effect.

Dated and Mailed February 18, 2011

BY THE COMMISSION:

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairperson

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

The employee has petitioned for commission review of the adverse appeal tribunal decision which found that the employee failed to file a timely request for hearing and such failure was not for a reason beyond her control. The employee attempted, but not successfully, to file an online appeal before the appeal deadline. However, the appeal instructions appearing online state:

After you click the SUBMIT button, you should see a confirmation page. Your appeal is not filed until you see this confirmation page. If you do NOT see the confirmation page, or you are for any other reason unable to complete this electronic filing process, you must mail, fax, or deliver your appeal in person.

You should print and keep a copy of the confirmation page. If there is a question about whether or when you filed an appeal, you may be asked to produce a copy of that confirmation page.

The employee did not obtain confirmation that her appeal was complete. The employee should have resubmitted her appeal online and obtained such confirmation or filed her appeal by mail, fax or in person.

The employee states that she was not aware that the hearing would only address why her appeal was late. However, the hearing notice for the November 15, 2010, hearing indicated that the issue that would be covered was "Was a timely request for hearing filed and, if not, was the request late for a reason beyond the party's control."

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

uploaded 2011/04/29