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

PATRICK F THELEN, Employe

TOMS QUALITY MILLWORK INC, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 99003677MD

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's request for hearing on the merits is dismissed. The department's determination shall remain in effect.

Dated and mailed December 22, 1999
thelepa.usd : 132 : 6   PC 711

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The employe has petitioned for commission review of the adverse appeal tribunal decision which found that he failed to file a timely request for hearing and his failure to file a timely request for hearing was not for a reason that was beyond his control. The employe states in his petition that he believes he is entitled to unemployment insurance. The employe notes that he had to go though a number of procedures in order to obtain a hearing, and then was informed that he was still being denied benefits.

First, it is the department's obligation to investigate an individual's eligibility for benefits if the employe's claim indicates that his unemployment may have occurred for a reason that does not permit immediate benefit payment. In this case, the employe was found to have quit his employment. As a result, an investigation ensued and the department issued an initial determination which found that he quit his employment and not for a reason that permits immediate benefit eligibility. This initial determination was mailed to the employe on September 10. On the face of that determination it stated "Decision final unless a written appeal is received or postmarked by: 09/24/99." The employe's appeal was not filed until October 4, 1999.

Because the employe did not file a timely appeal, the laws of this state, not the Department of Workforce Development nor the commission, require that the employe establish that it was beyond his control to file a timely appeal. In order to do so, the law requires that a hearing be held to offer the employe the opportunity to explain why his appeal was late. Such hearing was held in this matter. At that hearing, the employe explained that he failed to file a timely appeal because he did not realize it was a time sensitive issue and he neglected it. Again, the law requires that the employe establish that it was beyond his control to file a timely appeal. The commission has consistently held that it is within a party's control to thoroughly read determinations sent to the parties. Even individuals who are unable to read, whether it is because English is not their native language or otherwise, are expected to find someone who can read to explain the determination to them. Individuals are expected to act in a prompt fashion. One reason for deadlines for appealing is to allow for finality. The party in whose favor the decision has been rendered has a right to expect that the matter will be closed after a designated period of time. Once that time period has passed, the law requires that the individual adversely affected by that decision, here the employe, justify disregarding the need for finality. Further, the time and resources that must be expended by the state, at a cost to the taxpayers of the state, to now hold a hearing on a party's failure to timely appeal reasonably demand that the standard be high. The party who failed to act promptly should be expected to provide, basically, a compelling reason to justify the additional expense to the state, and the inconvenience to the other party.

The commission understands that the employe's unemployment insurance benefits are important to him. The commission understands in general that the receipt of unemployment benefits is very important to the employe, and payment of benefits is important to the employer. Because unemployment insurance benefits are of such importance to parties, the commission believes it only reasonable to expect parties who receive documentation regarding such an important issue will take the time to carefully and thoroughly read correspondence sent by the department. The employe as a taxpayer has every right to the hearings provided by law. However, the other taxpayers of the State of Wisconsin also have rights. The rights of the other taxpayers include not expending the state's resources, time, and money beyond that permitted by law. In this case, the law provides that further resources, time, and taxpayers' money is not to be expended on further hearing for a party who failed to read his initial determination carefully, neglected the unemployment issue, and filed a late appeal for a reason that was not beyond his control.

Finally, if the situation were reversed, that is, if the employer had filed a late request for hearing, the laws would have been applied in the same fashion. Again, the employe would have a right to expect finality, and the right to expect that the matter would not be reopened, which would involve expense to the state and inconvenience to the employe, unless a compelling reason for the late appeal were offered by the employer.

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