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

JANE M JUZA, Employe

AMERICAN RED CROSS BLOOD SERVICES, BADGER REGION, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION DECISION
Hearing No. 97400048GB

An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Division of Unemployment Insurance of the Department of Workforce Development (Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations prior to July 1, 1996) 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 ineligible for benefits beginning in week 50 of 1996, and until seven weeks have elapsed since the end of the week of discharge and the employe has earned wages in covered employment performed after the week of discharge equaling at least 14 times the employe's weekly benefit rate which would have been paid had the discharge not occurred.

Dated and mailed: April 3, 1997
juzaja.usd : 145 : 1 MC 610.25 PC 715

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Chairman

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In her petition for commission review the employe asserts that the employer should have treated its workers as it wished its customers to be treated, with respect. While that may be true, this is not relevant to the issue of whether the employe's discharge was for misconduct. Even assuming that the employe was not given the respect she thought she deserved, she should not have written threatening letters to the employer's customers.

The employe argues that the ALJ's decision is incorrect because the ALJ did not view respect as a two way street. However, the commission disagrees. First, even assuming that the employer did not treat the employe with respect the employe should not have taken this out on the customer but should have attempted to resolve the problem with the employer. After carefully reviewing the record, the commission agrees with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law made by the ALJ. There can be little room for disagreement, given the statements made by the employe in her letter to the customer.

The employe makes other factual assertions, which were not made at the hearing. The commission's rules provide, at Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter LIRC 1.04, that review by the commission is on the record of the case including the synopsis or summary of the testimony or other evidence presented at the hearing. As was explained in the "Important Hearing Information" section of the hearing notice sent to the parties in this matter, the law requires that the commission's review be based solely on the testimony and documents presented at the hearing before the administrative law judge. For this reason, the commission cannot consider factual assertions made in the petition for review, or documents submitted with the petition for review, which were not also made or submitted at the hearing. Since the commission's review must therefore be based on the evidence submitted at the hearing which has already been held, the commission will not address or consider the factual assertions made by the employe which are not supported by the record.

The employe further asserts that her uncle was unable to afford a lawyer at his unemployment insurance hearing, and therefore a lawyer was appointed for him. However, the department does not appoint lawyers for unrepresented parties at unemployment hearings. It may be that the employe's uncle was provided a lawyer by a legal aid agency or a volunteer lawyer group, or law school clinic, however, it is not the practice of the commission to provide attorneys for indigent parties.

cc:
AMERICAN RED CROSS BLOOD SERVICES

ATTORNEY SABIN S PETERSON
AXLEY BRYNELSON LAW OFFICES

Appealed to Circuit Court. Affirmed December 29, 1997. Court Decision Summary

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