FIRST WISCONSIN LENDING INC, Employer
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:
The putative employer (FWL) operates as a mortgage broker.
The department conducted an audit of those individuals FWL had paid for services performed during 2004 and 2005. As a result of this audit, the department classified 28 of these individuals as statutory employees. In an initial determination issued on October 16, 2006, the department held that, based upon the audit results, FWL became a subject employer as of January 1, 2004. The department issued a separate monetary determination on October 20, 2006.
FWL filed a timely appeal of both determinations. However, the department assigned a hearing number only to the appeal of the determination issued on October 16. At hearing, the department agreed to assign a separate hearing number to FWL's appeal of the monetary determination issued on October 20 but has apparently failed to do so. As a result, the commission has processed the appeals of both determinations under Hearing No. S0600200MW.
Wisconsin Statutes § § 108.02(12)(a) and (bm) state as follows, as relevant here:
(a) "Employee" means any individual who is or has been performing services for an employing unit, whether or not the individual is paid directly by such employing unit; except as provided in par. (b), (bm), (c), or (d)....
(bm) During the 4-year period beginning on January 1, 2000, with respect to contribution requirements, ...par. (a) does not apply to an individual performing services for an employing unit...if the employing unit satisfies the department that the individual meets 7 or more of the following conditions by contract and in fact:
1. The individual holds or has applied for an identification number with the federal internal revenue service.
2. The individual has filed business or self-employment income tax returns with the federal internal revenue service based on such services in the previous year or, in the case of a new business, in the year in which such services were first performed.
3. The individual maintains a separate business with his or her own office, equipment, materials and other facilities.
4. The individual operates under contracts to perform specific services for specific amounts of money and under which the individual controls the means and method of performing the services.
5. The individual incurs the main expenses related to the services that he or she performs under contract.
6. The individual is responsible for the satisfactory completion of the services that he or she contracts to perform and is liable for a failure to satisfactorily complete the services.
7. The individual receives compensation for services performed under a contract on a commission or per-job or competitive-bid basis and not on any other basis.
8. The individual may realize a profit or suffer a loss under contracts to perform services.
9. The individual has recurring business liabilities or obligations.
10. The success or failure of the individual's business depends on the relationship of business receipts to expenditures.
Wisconsin Statutes § 108.02(12)(a) creates a presumption that a person who provides services for pay is an employee, and it requires the entity for which the person is performing those services to bear the burden of proving that the person is not an employee. See, Dane County Hockey Officials, UI Hearing No. S9800101MD (LIRC Feb. 22, 2000); Quality Communications Specialists, Inc., UI Hearing Nos. S0000094MW, etc. (LIRC July 30, 2001).
Of the 28 individuals at issue, 19 performed services as loan originators.
FWL appears to be arguing that, because certain of the loan originators in effect paid FWL a monthly fee for operating under its mortgage broker license, retaining for themselves 100% of the commission earned for securing and closing a loan, FWL was effectively performing services for these loan originators rather than these loan originators performing services for FWL. However, FWL stipulated at hearing that all of the individuals at issue here, with two exceptions (Kumprey and Grissum), performed services for FWL for pay during the time period at issue.
Kumprey performed two types of services for FWL. He performed services for the corporate entity as its president. Kumprey described these services in his testimony to include arranging for the preparation of the corporation's tax return, renewing his mortgage broker license, completing paperwork for new loan originators required by regulators, preparing checks for payment, responding to client concerns, and developing relationships with lenders. Kumprey also performed services for FWL as a loan originator. Kumprey was paid by FWL for the services he performed, although it is not clear from the record how much he was paid for each type of service.
Grissum performed services as a loan processor. Like the other loan processors at issue here, which FWL concedes performed services for FWL for pay, Grissum performed these services for particular FWL loan originators and was paid by FWL. The fact that, unlike the other loan processes, she was paid on a per-week basis rather than a per-job basis, is irrelevant to determining whether she met the requirements of Wis. Stat. § 108.02(12)(a).
As a result, all of the individuals at issue, including Kumprey and Grissum, performed services for pay for FWL during the relevant time period.
Loan Originators
The loan originators sought customers for new purchase home mortgage loans, loans for refinancing existing home mortgages, and home equity loans. The loan originators would research whether an interested customer met the income/credit requirements of the lenders with which FWL did business; refer customers meeting such requirements to a particular lender; prepare the necessary paperwork and otherwise process the loan once it was approved by the lender; and attend the closing. The loan originators received a commission for each loan they closed, at the rate established in their agreement with FWL.
Although the loan originators paid their own marketing, office, and travel expenses, their expenses for appraisals, credit reports, and certain loan processing were reimbursed by the customers if a loan closed. If a loan did not close, the loan originators were responsible for these expenses.
It should be noted that only 6 (1) of the 19 loan originators testified at hearing, and there was no agreement by the parties that the testimony of these 6 would be considered representative of the group. See, MSI Services, Inc., UI Hearing No. S0600129AP (LIRC Sept. 5, 2008)(testimony of certain individual workers not properly considered to represent the testimony of a larger group of workers in absence of stipulation by parties, or competent evidence, to that effect); Preferred Financial of Wisconsin, Inc., UI Hearing No. S0600240MW (LIRC Oct. 23, 2008); T-N-T Express LLC, UI Hearing Nos. S9700385MD, S9700386MD (LIRC Feb. 22, 2000).
The record shows that only loan originator Kerzner held or applied for a federal employer identification number (FEIN) as required by condition 1. Condition 1. is satisfied only as to Kerzner.
The competent evidence of record, as it relates to condition 2., shows as follows:
• Hudock - began performing services as loan originator prior to 2003; filed Schedule C for 2004 and 2005 tax years;
• Kerzner - began performing services as loan originator in 2003;
• Kumprey
• Lammers - began performing services as loan originator in 2003; filed Schedule C for 2004 tax year.
• Prusheik - began performing services as loan originator in 2003; filed Schedule C for 2004 and 2005 tax years;
• Scerpella - began performing services as loan originator in 2004.
The record shows that the only loan originators filing self-employment/business tax returns were Hudock, Lammers, and Prusheik, each of whom started performing loan origination services in 2003. Condition 2 requires that, for 2004, Hudock, Lammers, and Prusheik have filed a Schedule C for the 2003 tax year; and, for 2005, the 2004 tax year. The record does not show that any of them filed a Schedule C for the 2003 tax year. As a result, condition 2 is satisfied only as to Hudock, Lammers, and Prusheik, and only for 2005.
The ALJ found that Kerzner had also filed a self-employment/business tax return, but the evidence of record does not establish this.
The focus of condition 3. is upon determining whether a separate business, i.e., an enterprise created and existing separate and apart from the relationship with the putative employer, is being maintained with the individual's own resources. See, Princess House, Inc., v. DILHR, 111 Wis. 2d 46, 330 N.W. 2d 169 (1983); Larson v. LIRC, 184 Wis. 2d 378, 516 N.W. 2d 456 (Ct. App. 1994); Lozon Remodeling, UI Hearing No. S9000079HA (LIRC Sept. 24, 1999). In Quality Communications Specialists, Inc., supra, the commission clarified that all parts of the test articulated in condition 3. must be met in order for the putative employer to satisfy its burden. Although the record shows that the loan originators who testified had separate business offices or spaces in their homes dedicated to a business purpose, and used certain of their own equipment, e.g., vehicle, cell phone, computer, fax machine, scanner, copier, and printer, it does not show that they had an enterprise existing separate and apart from their relationship with FWL i.e., they were prohibited from performing loan originator services for any entity other than FWL. Simply because an individual has a separate office, and uses certain of his/her own materials and equipment, does not establish that he/she is operating a separate business within the meaning of condition 3. See, Preferred Financial, supra. (loan originators prohibited from performing services for more than one mortgage broker did not have separate business); Roth v. World Financial Group, Inc., UI Hearing No. 07002934MD (LIRC Jan. 10, 2008) (fact that worker prohibited from performing services for entity other than putative employer militates against existence of a separate business); Prince Cable, Inc., UI Hearing No. S9900227MW (LIRC Feb. 23, 2001)(fact that worker performs services only for putative employer generally inconsistent with existence of separate business).
To satisfy condition 4., it must be established that the loan originators operate under contracts to perform specific services for specific amounts of money, and that, under these contracts, they control the means and method of performing the services.
Condition 4. requires multiple contracts. These may take the form of multiple contracts with separate entities, or multiple serial contracts with the putative employer if such contracts are shown to have been negotiated "at arm's length," with terms that will vary over time and will vary depending on the specific services covered by the contract. The existence of bona fide multiple contracts tends to show that the individual either has multiple customers, or that he has periodic opportunities for "arm's length" negotiation with the putative employer as to the conditions of their relationship, and that he is not dependent upon a single, continuing relationship that is subject to conditions dictated by a single employing unit. See, T-N-T Express LLC, UI Hearing Nos. S9700385, etc. (LIRC Feb. 22, 2000); Dane Co. Hockey Officials, supra.
The contract under which the loan originators performed services for FWL was a single contract. The only term of this contract which varied over time, and apparently only for certain loan originators, was that setting the commission percentage. This does not satisfy the multiple contracts requirement of condition 4. See, Preferred Financial, supra.; Barnett v. Alternative Entertainment, Inc., UI Hearing No. 02003109WU (LIRC Oct. 29, 2002) (condition 4. not satisfied by single contract with putative employer which was essentially renewed unchanged except for updated price structure).
Applying condition 5. requires a determination of what services are performed under the contract, what expenses are related to the performance of these services, which of these expenses are borne by the person whose status is at issue, and whether these expenses constitute the main expense. Lozon Remodeling, supra.; Quality Communications Specialists, Inc., supra. This inquiry generally requires quantification of these expenses.
The record shows that the 6 loan originators who testified paid for their own licenses, travel expenses, equipment, supplies, business phones, Internet access, fax and phone lines, loan processing, and marketing; and, in those circumstances in which a loan is requested but not closed, they paid for credit reports and property appraisals. The record does not establish the costs paid by the other loan originators. FWL paid for its broker license and bond, and its administrative costs, some of which were devoted to supporting its loan originators. Although some of these costs were not quantified, it is obvious that the loan originators who testified necessarily bore the main expense and condition 5. is satisfied as to them.
In order to sustain its burden to show that the requirements of condition 6. are satisfied, FWL would have to show that the loan originators were responsible for the satisfactory completion of the services they performed, and liable for any failure to satisfactorily complete them. In the sales context, such a failure could include, for example, mistakes in preparing or transmitting a customer loan request; mistakes in screening a customer; or mistakes in communicating cost, loan features, or availability to a customer. See, Preferred Financial, supra.; Matthew G. Frazer, UI Hearing Nos. S0600184MD, etc., (LIRC June 14, 2007). FWL argues that this condition was satisfied because, if the loan originators did not satisfactorily complete the services they performed, the loan would not close and they would not get paid. The risk of not being paid for unsatisfactory work performed does not satisfy this condition, however, because this would be typical of piecework employees as well. See, Preferred Financial, supra. As a result, condition 6. is not satisfied.
The loan originators were compensated on a commission basis only and, therefore, condition 7. is satisfied.
Condition 8. examines whether, under an individual contract for a worker's services, there can be a profit (if the income received under that contract exceeds the expenses incurred in performing the contract), as well as whether there can be a loss under that contract (if the income received under that contract fails to cover the expenses incurred in performing the contract). It is arguable, as the commission concluded in Quality Communications Specialists, Inc., supra., that the receipt by the loan originators of more in commissions than they were required to spend performing services for FWL would constitute "realiz[ing] a profit...under contracts to perform services." In addition, since the loan originators were paid only if they closed a loan, it is possible that their costs could exceed their commissions and they could realize a loss. See, Preferred Financial, supra.; Matthew G. Frazer, supra; Roth, supra. Condition 8. is satisfied.
Condition 9. requires proof of a cost of doing business which the worker would incur even during a period of time he was not performing work through the putative employer, such as the cost of an office lease, certain professional fees, or liability insurance. Although the loan originators' costs for marketing, travel, and office supplies would not satisfy this condition, their licensing fees would. See, Preferred Financial, supra. Condition 9. is satisfied.
Finally, the commission has interpreted condition 10. as intending to examine the overall course of a worker's business. See, Quality Communications Specialists, Inc., supra. Condition 10. requires that a significant investment is put at risk and there is the potential for real success through the growth in the value of the investment and for real failure in the sense of actual loss of the investment. See, Thomas Gronna, supra. The investments in office equipment by the loan originators who testified were not shown to be significant or to be subject to the risk of actual loss. See, Preferred Financial, supra. The record does not show that any of the loan originators put a significant investment at risk, and condition 10. is not satisfied as a result..
In summary, only conditions 7., 8., and 9. are satisfied as to all of the loan originators; condition 1. as to Kerzner; condition 2. as to Hudock, Lammers, and Prusheik but only for 2005; and condition 5. as to Hudock, Kerzner, Kumprey, Lammers, Prusheik, and Scerpella. Since Wis. Stat. § 108.02(12)(bm) requires that seven conditions be satisfied in order for a worker to be considered an independent contractor, the satisfaction of no more than five of the ten conditions compels the conclusion that the loan originators performed services for FWL as employees, not as independent contractors, during the time period at issue.
FWL appears to argue that the loan originators should be regarded as independent contractors, not as employees, because that is what their contract specified. However, the loan originators' status is determined by statute, not by the terms of a private agreement. Roberts v. Industrial Comm., 2 Wis. 2d 399 (1957). See, also, Knops v. Integrity Project Management, UI Hearing No. 06400323AP (LIRC May 12, 2006).
FWL also portrays the relationship of FWL and certain of the loan originators as consisting solely of the use by these loan originators of FWL's mortgage broker license. However, this is disingenuous. As certain of the loan originators testified, it was to their advantage to utilize the lenders with which FWL had developed relationships over a period of time and, in fact, even if these loan originators had obtained their own mortgage broker licenses, many of these lenders would have been unavailable to them.
Loan Processors
Of the 28 individuals at issue, four performed services as loan processors, i.e., Grissum, Haas, Loeffler, and Roulier. Of these four, only Loeffler testified at hearing.
The record does not show that any of the loan processors held or applied for a federal employer identification number (FEIN) as required by condition 1.
The record shows that only Loeffler filed a business/self-employment income tax return, and this only for the 2005 tax year. However, since the record does not show that Loeffler first began performing loan processing services in 2005, condition 2. is not satisfied as to any of the loan processors. Although the ALJ found that Roulier filed a self-employment/business tax return, there is no competent evidence in the record to support this finding.
The focus of condition 3. is upon determining whether a separate business, i.e., an enterprise created and existing separate and apart from the relationship with the putative employer, is being maintained with the individual's own resources. See, Princess House, Inc., v. DILHR, 111 Wis. 2d 46, 330 N.W. 2d 169 (1983); Larson v. LIRC, 184 Wis. 2d 378, 516 N.W. 2d 456 (Ct. App. 1994); Lozon Remodeling, UI Hearing No. S9000079HA (LIRC Sept. 24, 1999). In Quality Communications Specialists, Inc., supra, the commission clarified that all parts of the test articulated in condition 3. must be met in order for the putative employer to satisfy its burden. The record shows that Loeffler and Roulier had separate spaces in their homes dedicated to a business purpose, as well as their own equipment and materials; and performed loan processing services for more than one entity, a circumstance generally consistent with the existence of a separate business. As a result, condition 3. is satisfied as to Loeffler and Roulier. The ALJ held that all of the loan processors satisfied condition 3., but there is insufficient evidence to support this holding as it relates to Haas and Grissum.
To satisfy condition 4., it must be established that the loan processors operate under multiple contracts, and control the means and method of performing the services. The record shows that Loeffler and Roulier performed loan processing services under agreements with multiple entities, and controlled the means and method of performing such services. As a result, condition 4. is satisfied as to them. However, again, although the ALJ held that all of the loan processors satisfied condition 4., there is insufficient competent evidence to support this holding as it relates to Haas and Grissum.
Applying condition 5. requires a determination of what services are performed under the contract, and who bears the main expense related to the performance of these services. The record does not show what expenses were borne by Grissum, Haas, or Roulier. The record does show that Loeffler bore the expense of acquiring and maintaining a computer and fax machine, office supplies, mailings, travel, phone, and Internet. Although FWL bore some administrative expenses associated with conveying information to Loeffler and paying him, Loeffler's expenses necessarily exceeded those borne by FWL and condition 5. was satisfied as to him.
In order to sustain its burden to show that the requirements of condition 6. are satisfied, FWL would have to show that the loan processors were responsible for the satisfactory completion of the services they performed, and liable for any failure to satisfactorily complete them. The record, however, does not show that any of the loan processors were liable if they made an error or otherwise performed unsatisfactorily. The risk that the loan processors would not be paid for unsatisfactory work does not satisfy this condition, because this would be typical of piecework employees as well. See, Preferred Financial, supra. Moreover, Loeffler testified that, even if a loan did not close, he was paid for his loan processing services.
Condition 7. requires that the individual be compensated only on a commission, per-job, or competitive-bid basis. There is no evidence in the record as to the manner in which Haas was compensated. Grissum was paid a set amount each week which does not satisfy condition 7. The record shows that Loeffler and Roulier were paid on a per-job basis, and, as a result, condition 7. is satisfied as to them.
Condition 8. examines whether, under an individual contract for a worker's services, there can be a profit (if the income received under that contract exceeds the expenses incurred in performing the contract), as well as whether there can be a loss under that contract (if the income received under that contract fails to cover the expenses incurred in performing the contract). It is arguable, as the commission concluded in Quality Communications Specialists, Inc., supra., that the receipt by the loan processors of more in payments than they were required to spend performing services for FWL would constitute "realiz[ing] a profit...under contracts to perform services." However, the record does not contain any evidence in regard to Haas; and shows that Grissum was guaranteed payment each week and Loeffler was paid for loan processing services he had performed whether the underlying loan closed or not. This does not establish a realistic possibility that any of these loan originators could suffer a loss. The record does show, however, through the testimony of Kumprey, that Roulier was not paid for her services if a loan did not close, and, as a result, condition 8. is satisfied as to Roulier.
Condition 9. requires proof of a cost of doing business which the worker would incur even during a period of time he was not performing work through the putative employer. There is no evidence in this regard as to Grissum, Haas, or Roulier. Loeffler testified that he had certain ongoing expenses for a cell phone and Internet access. However, the record does not show that he used the cell phone and Internet exclusively for business purposes and condition 9. would not be satisfied as a result.
Finally, the record does not show that any of the loan processors put a significant investment at risk within the meaning of condition 10.
In summary, conditions 3., 4., and 7. were satisfied as to Loeffler and Roulier; 5. as to Loeffler, and 8 as to Roulier. Since Wis. Stat. § 108.02(12)(bm) requires that seven conditions be satisfied in order for a worker to be considered an independent contractor, the satisfaction of no more than four of the ten conditions compels the conclusion that the loan processors performed services for FWL as employees, not as independent contractors, during the time period at issue.
Lead providers
Of the 28 individuals at issue, two (Friz and Ralston) provided names of potential customers to loan originators.
The parties stipulated at hearing that Ralston did not perform services for FWL as an employee.
There is insufficient evidence in the record to permit a review of the ten conditions as they apply to Friz. As a result, FWL failed to rebut the presumption that Friz performed services for FWL as an employee.
Trainer Engen
Engen provided certain training services under a single contract with FWL.
The record does not show that Engen held or applied for a FEIN (condition 1.); filed self-employment tax returns (condition 2.); maintained a separate business (condition 3.); had multiple contracts (condition 4.); had recurring business liabilities or obligations (condition 9); or had placed a significant investment at risk (condition 10).
The record shows only that Engen incurred travel expenses, and these expenses were reimbursed by FWL. As a result, the record does not show that Engen incurred the main expense within the meaning of condition 5.
The record shows that the only consequence for unsatisfactory performance for Engen would be non-payment by FWL. This is insufficient to satisfy condition 6.
Engen was compensated on a per-job basis which satisfies condition 7.
The record does not show, since Engen was guaranteed payment for his services and was reimbursed his travel expenses, that there was a realistic possibility that he could have suffered a loss, and condition 8. is not satisfied as a result.
In summary, Engen satisfied only condition 7. Since Wis. Stat. § 108.02(12)(bm) requires that seven conditions be satisfied in order for a worker to be considered an independent contractor, the satisfaction of only one of the ten conditions compels the conclusion that Engen performed services for FWL as an employee, not an independent contractor, during the time period at issue.
Computer Consultant Lone
Lone performed computer-related services for FWL.
The record does not show that Lone held or applied for a FEIN (condition 1.); filed self-employment tax returns (condition 2.); maintained a separate business (condition 3.); had multiple contracts (condition 4.); was responsible for the satisfactory completion of his services (condition 6.); had recurring business liabilities or obligations (condition 9); or had placed a significant investment at risk (condition 10).
Since Lone paid for his own transportation and for the computer hardware and software he used to perform services for FWL, he necessarily bore the main expenses and condition 5. is satisfied as a result.
Lone was compensated on a per-job basis which satisfies condition 7.
In addition, the record shows that Lone made a significant investment in computer hardware and software in order to carry out his contract with FWL. There was, as a result, a realistic possibility that he could have realized a profit or suffered a loss within the meaning of condition 8.
In summary, the record shows that Lone satisfied conditions 5., 7., and 8. Since Wis. Stat. § 108.02(12)(bm) requires that seven conditions be satisfied in order for a worker to be considered an independent contractor, the satisfaction of only three of the ten conditions compels the conclusion that Lone performed services for FWL as an employee, not an independent contractor, during the time period at issue.
Painter Schmidt
Schmidt performed painting services for FWL.
The record does not show that Schmidt held or applied for a FEIN (condition 1.); filed self-employment tax returns (condition 2.); maintained a separate business (condition 3.); had multiple contracts (condition 4.); was responsible for the satisfactory completion of his services (condition 6.); had a realistic possibility of suffering a loss under his contract with FWL (condition 8.); had recurring business liabilities or obligations (condition 9); or had placed a significant investment at risk (condition 10).
FWL paid for the paint, and Schmidt paid for his painting supplies and transportation. Since these expenses are not quantified in the record, it is not possible to determine whether Schmidt bore the main expense within the meaning of condition 5.
Schmidt was compensated on a competitive-bid basis which satisfies condition 7.
In summary, Schmidt satisfied only condition 7. Since Wis. Stat. § 108.02(12)(bm) requires that seven conditions be satisfied in order for a worker to be considered an independent contractor, the satisfaction of only one of the ten conditions compels the conclusion that Schmidt performed services for FWL as an employee, not an independent contractor, during the time period at issue.
FWL argues that it was misled by information provided by the department as to the statutory definition of employee. FWL asserts that the department provided the definition set forth in Wis. Stat. § 108.02(12)(b), applicable to the period beginning on January 1, 1996, and ending on December 31, 1999. This statutory provision sets forth the same ten conditions as Wis. Stat. § 108.02(12)(bm), which became effective for contribution purposes on January 1, 2000, but, instead of requiring that seven of ten conditions be satisfied, requires that, if one of the first two conditions is satisfied, then six of the remaining eight conditions must be satisfied. Even if the department provided only the language of Wis. Stat. § 108.02(12)(b) to FWL and it relied upon this language, this reliance would not have had any impact on the result here. First of all, the record shows that only 4 of the 28 individuals met at least one of the first two conditions. Moreover, even if all 28 had met at least one of the first two conditions, none satisfied at least six of the remaining eight conditions.
FWL also takes issue with the ALJ's ruling excluding the testimony of loan originator Bull. Bull was not one of the 28 individuals whose status was at issue. Moreover, even though provided an opportunity to do so, FWL did not offer a relevant purpose for Bull's testimony. The ALJ's ruling was correct.
FWL also objects to the ALJ's ruling excluding the receipt of certain documents in lieu of the testimony of loan originator Long. However, these documents were not the best evidence and the ALJ's ruling was correct.
FWL argues that it was inappropriate for the department to argue that there was no evidence in the record to support the satisfaction of a particular condition when the department failed to offer such evidence. However, it was the burden of FWL, who had full and fair opportunity to offer evidence at hearing, to rebut the presumption that those who performed services for pay did so as employees, not the department's burden to prove they did not.
FWL also argues that it was disadvantaged by not being represented by an attorney. However, that was FWL's choice.
The decision of the administrative law judge is reversed. Accordingly, the putative employer (FWL) is subject to Wisconsin's unemployment insurance law (Wis. Stat. ch. 108) retroactive to January 1, 2004.
Dated and mailed January 30, 2009
firstwi . srr : 115 : 1 EE 409; EE 410 EE 410.03
EE 410.04a EE 410.08
James T. Flynn, Chairperson
/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner
/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner
NOTE: The commission did not confer with the administrative law judge before reversing his decision, because its reversal was not based upon a differing view as to the credibility of witnesses, but instead upon a differing conclusion as to what the hearing record in fact established and upon a differing interpretation of the relevant law.
cc:
Attorney Michael J. Mathis
Pettit & Associates
[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]