P O BOX 8126, MADISON, WI 53708-8126 (608/266-9850)



Hearing No. 99000726JV

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 claimant shall forfeit $2,397 in unemployment benefits that become payable by September 25, 2004.

Dated and mailed May 21, 1999
halgesa4 . usd : 164 : 6   BR 330

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner


In her petition for commission review the claimant contends that she called to ask about reporting part-time hours and carefully explained the situation to a claims specialist, who told her that since she was not reporting "new work" the hours need not be reported.  The claimant maintains that the department should take responsibility for the quality of work of its employes or for the misinformation they provide. This argument is without merit.  In a separate decision, hearing number 9900723JV, it was found that, in addition to her part-time work, the claimant was also working full-time for a temporary staffing service during the time period in question.  Consequently, the claimant’s assertion that she contacted a claims specialist to find out what to do now that she was only working part-time is questionable.  Moreover, the commission considers it unlikely that the claimant would have been advised not to report wages earned in part-time employment simply because it was not "new work." However, even accepting that the conversation occurred as the claimant reports it, the claimant testified that the statement of the claims specialist did not make sense to her at the time and that her instincts told her the wages needed to be reported.  Given this factor, the claimant was not justified in reporting that she earned no wages, a matter which she knew to be untrue, or in reporting that she had performed no work, a matter which was not only false, but which went beyond the advice the claimant was purportedly given by the claims specialist.  Under all of the circumstances, the commission agrees with the appeal tribunal that the claimant deliberately concealed from the department work performed and wages earned for the weeks in question.  Accordingly, the appeal tribunal decision is affirmed.

Appealed to Circuit Court. Affirmed, March 13, 2000.  Appealed to Court of Appeals.  Affirmed, unpublished per curiam decision, February 7, 2001.

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