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


THOMAS W KOUGL, Employe

EXHIBITRY PLUS INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 99606439MW


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 employe is eligible for benefits beginning in week 32 of 1999, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed December 22, 1999
kouglth.usd : 105 : 1  PC 712.5

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The commission has affirmed the appeal tribunal decision in this case, because it agrees with the administrative law judge's conclusion of no misconduct. The evidence in the hearing record indicates that the employe and president of the employer had an agreement pursuant to which the employer would not assign the employe the work it attempted to assign him (and which led to the separation). The record also indicates that the employe even attempted to see if he would be able to take the assignment in question but that, after discussing the matter with his wife, knew he would be unable to take it.

The underlying issue of course is the president's failure to have appeared at the hearing. The president indicates in the petition for review that she was out of town due to business emergency and thus was unable to appear at the October 4 hearing. The file does not indicate that the president ever informed the Department of Workforce Development of this conflict or asked for a postponement or continuance of the hearing. The petition for review is generally too late to raise this kind of claim.

For these reasons, and those stated in the appeal tribunal decision, the commission has affirmed that decision.


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