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

ANTON LETU, Employee

WISCONSIN BELL INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 10004161MD


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 makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

As of the calendar week ending June 19, 2010 (week 25), the employee was filing for Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) benefits. On his week
25 claim, completed on the evening of Friday, June 25, 2010 (week 26), the employee answered, "Yes" to the question, "Did you refuse work that was offered to you?"

The employee answered yes based upon an Internet solicitation he received from a company allegedly headquartered overseas. However, the employee quickly determined it was not a valid offer when it asked him to open a bank account and send it his account information.

Department records reflect that on Monday, June 28, 2010 (week 27), a document was mailed to the employee apprising him of the need to contact a claims specialist in the next five days regarding the alleged refusal or no further benefits would be received. The department record marked as an exhibit reflect that the employee was to contact 1-800-311-4884.

The employee testified that he attempted to contact a claims specialist but received busy signals.

On Wednesday, July 7, 2010 (week 28), the determination was issued, denying benefits as of week 25 of 2010 based upon the employee's failure, after due notice, to provide information to the department.

On Monday, July 12, 2010 (week 29), the employee appealed the determination. In his appeal, he explained the circumstances of the alleged offer and his unsuccessful attempts to contact the department by telephone.

Department records further reflect via TISQ screen that the employee contacted the department on July 21, 2010 and provided information regarding the refusal of work.

On September 2, 2010, the ALJ issued her decision finding that the employee had not provided sufficient information to the department regarding the refusal. On September 21, 2010, the employee's attorney petitioned for commission review of the appeal tribunal decision.

Department records reflect that on September 25, 2010, a determination was issued finding that as of week 29 of 2010, the employee provided the requested information with his appeal request dated July 12, 2010 but that the original denial determination was not redetermined because "the claimant never withdrew his appeal request."

Applicable Statute

Wis. Stat. § 108.04(1)(i) provides,

(i) A claimant who does not provide information sufficient for the department to determine whether the claimant has been discharged for misconduct connected with his or her employment, has voluntarily terminated his or her work, has failed without good cause to accept suitable work when offered, or has failed to return to work with a former employer that recalls the employee within 52 weeks after the employee last worked for that employer is not eligible to receive benefits for the week in which the discharge, termination or failure occurs or any subsequent week. If a claimant later provides the information and has good cause for the initial failure to provide the information, he or she is eligible to receive benefits as of the week in which the discharge, termination or failure occurred, if otherwise qualified. If a claimant later provides the information but does not have good cause for the initial failure to provide the information, he or she is eligible to receive benefits as of the week in which the information is provided, if otherwise qualified.

Issue

Given the September 25, 2010 determination, the issue before the commission is whether, in weeks 25 through 28, the employee failed to provide information without good cause.

The ALJ found that the employee's testimony that he received busy signals was not credible. At the hearing, she marked and received the TIC (Telephone Initial Claims) Busy Signal Report for weeks 24 through 30 of 2010.(1) The commission reverses the ALJ's decision based upon the fact that the Telephone Initial Claims (TIC) system is separate from the Claims Assistance numbers. Thus, there is no evidence in the record that the number that the employee was directed to contact would be a number in which busy signals would be tracked on the TIC report. Without any other evidence to call the employee's testimony into question, and given his honesty in originally reporting the "scam" offer, the commission finds that the employee established good cause for the failure to provide information.

The commission therefore finds that while the employee failed to provide information sufficient to determine whether he failed without good cause to accept suitable work when offered, the employee later provided the information and has good cause for the initial failure to provide the information within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(1)(i).

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is reversed. Accordingly, the employee is eligible for benefits beginning in week 25 of 2010, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed January 12, 2011
letuant : 150 : 5 CP 350

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairperson

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

cc: Attorney Bruce Davey


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


uploaded 2011/04/29


Footnotes:

(1)( Back ) In a note at the end of Jeffrey Stauss, UI Dec. Hearing No. 00001485MD (LIRC July 18, 2000), the commission indicated that ALJs could take administrative notice of such reports without a department witness to verify the document.