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

TROY S BRADLEY, Employee

ANDREWS YARD MAINTENANCE & SNOW
BLOWING INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 11401531AP


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 employer's request for a rehearing on the merits is denied. The appeal tribunal decision issued April 1, 2011, is reinstated.

Dated and mailed August 12, 2011
bradltr . usd : 102 : 1

BY THE COMMISSION:

/s/ Robert Glaser, Chairperson

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

/s/ Laurie R. McCallum, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The employer petitioned the adverse appeal tribunal decision and requested a rehearing on the merits. In its petition for commission review, the employer reiterates its testimony from the hearing regarding its failure to appear at the telephone hearing scheduled for March 28, 2011.

The standard for failing to appear at a hearing is "good cause." A party who misses a hearing is entitled to further hearing if the party establishes good cause for its initial failure to appear. The courts have defined this standard to be "excusable neglect," that is, the neglect a reasonably prudent person might commit in similar circumstances. Davis v. New Health Services Inc, UI Dec. Hearing No. 05607383MW (LIRC Mar. 23, 2006).

The employer admittedly received the hearing notice prior to the hearing which stated: "YOUR PHONE MUST ACCEPT CALLS FROM 'BLOCKED' PHONE NUMBERS." Nonetheless, the employer failed to take the necessary steps to ensure that its phone conformed to this requirement. The employer's actions were not those of a reasonable, prudent party under similar circumstances. As such, the employer did not have good cause for its failure to appear and its request for a rehearing on the merits is denied. Stoklasa v. All Modes Acquisition Corp, UI Dec. Hearing No. 10602978MW (LIRC Sept. 17, 2010).



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


uploaded 2011/09/13