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


KATHLEEN A GRUSZKOWSKI, Employe

TOPS CLUB INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 99604747MW


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 commission also determines that further hearing is not warranted.

DECISION

The employer's request for further hearing is denied and the appeal tribunal decision is affirmed. Accordingly, the employe is eligible for benefits beginning in week 23 of 1999, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed September 23, 1999
gruszka.usd : 105 : 1 PC 712.5

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The ostensible issue in this case is the employe's attendance record; the employer did not appear at the hearing and so did not establish that the employe's attendance failures were misconduct for unemployment insurance purposes. This makes the dispositive issue whether the employer had good cause for its failure to have appeared at the July 15 hearing in the case; for the reasons stated below the commission concludes that it did not.

The employer states in its petition for review that it did not receive the hearing notice until July 12 and that, by that time, all of the employer's senior management personnel were at the employer's annual convention out of state. The department and commission have long held, though, that it is an employer's responsibility to have whatever mechanisms are necessary in place for timely response to time-sensitive matters from the Department of Workforce Development. It is apparent from the employer's assertions in the petition for review that it did not have proper mechanisms in place for timely response to the hearing notice in the case. The commission notes also that the timing of the hearing notice meets the notice requirements of Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 140.06(2). The commission also notes that it applies an analogous requirement to claimants. That is, claimants who will be away from their address of record with the department are also required to make some kind of arrangements for timely response to decisions and notices from the department.

For these reasons, the commission has concluded that the employer did not have good cause for its failure to have appeared at the July 15 hearing, and that further hearing therefore is not warranted.


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