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


JOLYN L BEAULIEU, Employe

CARING HEARTS INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 99200268EC


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 request for hearing is dismissed. The initial determination remains in effect.

Dated and mailed June 30, 1999
beauljo.usd : 132 : 7  PC 712.3

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The employer has petitioned for commission review of the adverse appeal tribunal decision which dismissed the employer's request for hearing based on its failure to appear at the originally scheduled hearing. The employer argues that the administrative law judge is not required to dismiss an appeal but has the discretion to dismiss an appeal. This is true. And the administrative law judge exercised her discretion. The decision was later confirmed by the appeal tribunal decision issued on March 11, 1999.

The employer also argues that it is unfair that the respondent can arrive at any time and would be able participate in a proceeding. This is not unfair but practical. Since it is the appellant who requests a hearing, the hearing may not proceed without that appellant. A respondent need not appear at all, and therefore if the respondent chooses to appear, whether it is five minutes into the hearing or five minutes before the end of the hearing, the hearing can proceed without the respondent.

The employer also argues that its familiarity with the hearing location led it to believe that a different building was the site of the hearing. However, the employe was aware of the correct hearing location. Further, as noted by the administrative law judge, the building that was the site of the hearing was at the corner of Orange and 4th Street and its location appeared on the notice of hearing. That is not the same address as the building in which the employer believed the hearing would take place.

For the above reasons, and for the reasons set forth in the appeal tribunal decision, the commission affirms that decision.

cc: ATTORNEY WALTER HODYNSKY
HEYWOOD & CARI SC


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