Employer Appeal reversed my unemployment award now what

[carp98]

Does the Commission just rubber stamp the hearing officers finding or do they actually review the case? In my appeal request I pointed out specifically that my phone records conflict directly with the testimony of the "credible witness" testimony that I was MIA on that specific date. This seems to be the only issue in determining that I quit my job vs being let go via email. No mention of my records not being accepted by the hearing officer but it seems clear they were not considered. Also, they were print outs of the phone activity directly from my providers website and not a paperbill I wonder if that has anything to do with it. But shouldn't the hearing officer have informed me that the records would not be considered based on the claim that my employer didnt receive his copy?

[Chyvan]

It's really hard with the board of review. They do tend to rubber stamp the tribunal because their stated task is to uphold the tribunal if there was substantial evidence to support the decision.

However, there are things the tribunal can do that causes the board to not be so willing to support the tribunal's decision. I went to the board three times, and won twice which is a big deal. I took guidance from the following:

a. Irregularity on part of presiding officer or other party to proceedings.
b. Abuse of discretion on part of hearing officer whereby petitioner was deprived of a fair hearing.
c. Newly discovered evidence which could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered and produced at time of original hearing.
d. There was error in admission or exclusion of evidence in Tribunal hearing.
e. There was error in law in Tribunal hearing.
f. Other good and sufficient grounds.

I was successfully able to use d. and e. in preparing my appeal. I wasn't at your hearing so you either need a really good memory or those transcripts. It's perfectly ok to request a board of review appeal, and just ask for more time to prepare the reasons after you get those transcripts. I'm think you got duped by the judge at your hearing. If you had the phone records, and it wasn't clear if they were excluded, then that is where you hang your hat, but you need the transcripts so you can quote exactly what was said that tripped you up.

[carp98]

thanks for the input. I requested the transcripts but they only supply an audio of the hearing (which is fine by me) unfortunately it will take a week to get to me and my deadline to file a review request is up in a week. I went ahead and filed my request for review based on the phone records being supplied by me which contradict the claim that I was unreachable on the day I was terminated. It will take 8 weeks for a response from the Commission. If the commission agrees with the hearing officer then the next step would be to request a re-hearing based on new evidence, I wonder if I can supply the same phone records but cite the fact that they were not used in the finding by the 1st hearing officer because my employer claimed to have not received them (even though I have the confirmation that they did).

[Chyvan]

My three board of review appeals took 6 to 8 weeks each. I modified two of my three submissions.

I would encourage you to submit what you have now, and after playing back the transcripts, submit an amendment to your original request. I'd really like to see you win in the shortest amount of time possible.

You can also request a reopening in this appeal because of the excluded evidence. From the decisions I received, I felt that the review board was extremely reluctant to overturn the ALJ. Even when I won, the best that happened was that I got a new hearing or it was remanded for more evidence. Only by having things kicked backwards in the process did I eventually encounter someone willing to give me benefits. So, I'm just of the opinion that every case is a potential winner, and until you hit the end of the line, just keep going.

[carp98]

How will I know if they rejected my phone records as evidence? If they did will they have an explanation? It seems insane to me that they take "credible testimony" of the owner of the company but would reject records from the phone company to refute the claim made by my former employer.

[Chyvan]

You have to read the decision carefully, go through the transcripts, and rely on memory.

If the telephone records contradict the employer's testimony, and the judge's conclusions that you had no contact with the employer, then you can be pretty sure the phone records were excluded.

As an example, I quit my job over a reduction in my compensation package. The two tribunal judges I had gave no weight to the compensation reduction in their decisions, and that was my clue that they chose to ignore it in making their decisions.

[Quantum]

Chyvan so did you lose?

[Chyvan]

Ultimately, I won after 11 months of appeals and another month waiting for someone to properly interpret the decision and pay me my money.

I lost for many changing reasons. My hours had been reduced, and because I wasn't full-time anymore I got hit with the double whammy of losing my very good medical and dental insurance, vacation, sick and holiday pay, pension, and access to subsidize retiree health insurance.

The reason for being denied were:

Deputy said I quit because of a reduction in hours, and that is disqualifying under AZ regulations.

First ALJ said the "reduction in compensation package did not render the job unsuitable." While in layman's terms, the job was suitable, but under the unemployment terms, the legal definition of suitably could not be met with the what was contained in the decision because the ALJ made zero attempt to compare what I had and what that type of job usually is vs what the employer was trying to shove down my throat.

The second ALJ said the fringe benefits I lost were not wages, and I had no business quiting because I lost them, and that it was her opinion that I was going to quit anyway and this was just an excuse.

In the winning analysis, the board concluded that at a minimum the benefits I lost represented a 22.9% reduction in my new lower part-time salary, and that I was in fact terminated for a nondisqualifying reason, and refused an offer of work that needs to be properly adjudicated as such, and if the new job is unsuitable based on what I formerly had, that I am entitled to benefits.