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


DELORES SINGLETON, Employe

CLEAN POWER INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 99001305MD


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

The employe worked as a cleaning person for about three months for the employer, a janitorial service. Her last day of work was January 26, 1999. On February 4, 1999 (week 6), she reopened a claim for unemployment benefits. At that time she was provided with several informational and instructional pamphlets that explained the procedure she would have to follow to file her weekly benefit claims by telephone.

On February 7, 1999, the employe filed her claim for week 6 of 1999, the calendar week ending February 6, using the telephone claim procedure. She answered "Yes" to question 3B: "Did you miss work your employer had scheduled for you?" As a result of this response, the department mailed the employe a letter on February 8, 1999. The employe received the letter but did not recall what she did after getting this letter. This letter stated that the employe's answer on her weekly claim for week 6 of 1999 indicates that she missed scheduled work. It informed her that if she had not already called a claims specialist about the issue she should call the number given on the letter within the next two days or no benefits would be paid for the week.

The employe did not contact the department within two days, as directed. As a result, the department issued a determination suspending the employe's eligibility for benefits until she provided sufficient information to make an eligibility determination. On February 18, 1999 (week 8), she provided the department with an explanation for her answer to question 3B on the claim for week 6 of 1999.

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 employe within 52 weeks after the employe has 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 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."

The employe remembered receiving the department's letter instructing her to contact the department, within two days, however, she did not recall what she did after receiving that letter. The employe's failure to contact the department as instructed was not for any good cause.

The commission therefore finds that in week 6 and 7 of 1999, the employe was not eligible for unemployment benefits because the employe failed, without good cause, to provide information sufficient for the department to determine whether the employe quit, was discharged, refused an offer of work, or did not return to work when recalled by a recent employer, within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(1)(i).

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is modified and as modified is affirmed. Accordingly, benefits are denied in week 6 and 7 of 1999. Thereafter, the employe is eligible for benefits, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed August 12, 1999
singlde.urr : 145 : 5 CP 350

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The commission did not discuss witness credibility and demeanor with the ALJ but modifies the ALJ's decision to better comport with the commission's view of the evidence presented in this case.


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