Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission --
Summary of Wisconsin Court Decision relating to Unemployment Insurance

Subject: William F. Honrath v. State of Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission and United Building Centers, Case 05-CV-182 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Oconto Co., September 28, 2005)

Digest Codes:  CP 360

The employee was laid off for lack of work in week 49 of 2004. He attempted to reactivate his unemployment claim during that week by telephone on the department’s automated telephone system, but during the process he thought he had answered one of the questions incorrectly, and rather than continue with the process he ended the call. Then he attempted to call back and talk to someone in person to see if he had made the error he believed he had made, but he wasn’t able to get through to a person. Thereafter, he made a number of attempts to contact a person at the department telephone number. However, on all but two of these occasions he was placed on hold and after waiting for anywhere from one to 13 minutes, he hung up. On the first of the two occasions on which he talked to a department employee that individual told him to telephone another number, but the employee “didn’t have any luck with that either.” On the second such occasion, which occurred on January 12, 2005, he finally completed the notification process. However, his failure to complete that process within 14 days following the end of week 49 left him ineligible for unemployment benefits for that week.

The commission affirmed the appeal tribunal decision that found for week 49 the employee failed to give timely notice of unemployment, within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 108.08(1), and Wisconsin Administrative Code ch. DWD 129. The employee appealed and argued that his failure to give notice was due to an “exceptional circumstance,” consisting of his job as an over-the-road truck driver, which allegedly prevented him from making telephone calls at any time other than during his lunch or during breaks.

Held: The commission is affirmed. The employee was able to telephone the department on at least 21 occasions, but until his final telephone call, he did not stay on the line long enough to complete the notification process. His circumstances were not exceptional and the commission’s decision was reasonable.
 

Please note that this is a summary prepared by staff of the commission, not a verbatim reproduction of the court decision.

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