JEANNETTE Y PAUL, Claimant

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 it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission makes the following:

The issue to be decided is whether the claimant made a systematic and sustained search for suitable work in weeks 34, 35, 36, 37, and or/ 38 of 2011.

Wis. Stat. § 108.141(3g)(c) provides:

A claimant shall make a systematic and sustained effort to obtain work and provide tangible evidence thereof to the department for each week for which the claimant files a claim for extended benefits. If a claimant fails to make the required effort to obtain work or to provide tangible evidence thereof, on a weekly basis, he or she is ineligible to receive extended benefits. . .
The claimant was aware of the requirement to maintain a complete log of at least two work searches each week she claimed benefits. The claimant submitted incomplete work searches during the weeks in question.

Department policy provides that the work search must show two employer contacts were made during the week in question and must include a complete address or a complete phone number.

The claimant's log for week 34 provides no date but does provide the names of two businesses along with sufficient information to allow the department to contact those contacts and verify that the claimant made this search. Both employers lacked a date of contact. One employer lacked the name of a contact person. The other employer lacked an address, but the claimant was able to furnish the address at the hearing. The commission considers this a sufficient work search. While the dates are missing, it is reasonable to conclude that the claimant made these searches during week 34 because the search is listed under the date range of 8/14 to 8/20. (week 34 of 2011).

For week 35, the claimant's work search log lists a contact on August 26, which provides the name, address phone number and contact. However, the second contact was lacking a date of contact. Again this contact is listed under the date range of 8/21/11 to 8/27/11. (week 35 of 2011).

The claimant did not have a copy of her work search for week 36 (week ending September 3, 2011). However, according to department records, it appears that at some point after the hearing the claimant furnished or the department found a work search for Casco Mini Mart performed during this week. The claimant asserts that she looked for work in each of the weeks in question.

During week 37, the claimant looked for work at three or four employers. She furnished the dates of the contacts, the names and cities of the employers and the names of the individuals she spoke to.

During week 38, the claimant listed two employers. There was sufficient information to verify that the claimant contacted one employer. There is another listed contact but it seems somewhat questionable that the name of the business is actually "Embroidering." Since there is a partially completed form, the claimant may be able to furnish additional information which would complete this work search. The claimant was not paid for this week, and possibly, could withdraw her claim for this week if she is unable to recreate her work search.

The commission therefore finds that, in weeks 34, 35 and 37 of 2011, the claimant made a systematic and sustained search for work and provided tangible evidence of that work search to the department, within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.141(3g)(c). Because it is possible that the claimant can recreate her work searches for weeks 36 and 38 of 2011, the commission remands this matter for a hearing and decision on those weeks.

The decision of the administrative law judge is reversed. Accordingly, the claimant is eligible for benefits in weeks 34, 35 and 37, if otherwise qualified. This matter is remanded to the department for a hearing and decision on weeks 36 and 38 of 2011.

Dated and mailed March 23, 2012

BY THE COMMISSION:

/s/ Robert Glaser, Chairperson

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

/s/ Laurie R. McCallum, Commissioner

The commission did not discuss witness credibility and demeanor with the ALJ before reversing his decision. The commission did not reverse the ALJ based on witness credibility but rather, reversed the ALJ's decision as a matter of law.

paulje . urr : 145 : 6

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

uploaded 2012/08/13