Employer appealing UI benefits decision

[buddybruce]

Update...did reopen case had date of phone hearing ..then had family emergency out of state was granted postponement and new pone hearing date was set on 9/14/2016. Well before that date I received in the mail on 9/01/2016 a notice of Withdrawal of appeal which stated On 08/31/2016 the Tennessee Department of Labor &Workforce Development received a request (from my former employer and it stated my employers name) to withdrawal the request to appeal. Accordingly, this case is dismissed and the original determination remains.
Taking this at face value (that the case was dismissed) I did not take part in the scheduled 09/14/2016 phone hearing as this seemed to be a moot point of having a phone hearing ,and figured I would receive a notice pretty much stating such. Well did receive a notice....that the phone hearing had taken place without me and of course it was ruled in the employers favor. I contacted the appeals tribunal and was told that that withdrawal did not apply to the set phone hearing (was under a different number) so I responded asking why it did not apply to the case overall..was still a withdrawal in writing..they responded in short."that the agency had withdrawn the appeal..and not the employer" ???? ...no where on the notice does it state the agency on its own withdrew the appeal (but did state my former employer did request it) ) but I could reopen the case again.. "due to my misunderstanding " which they(the agency) have started( the reopen) seems I can't get a straight answer from them other than to reopen the case again.

[Chyvan]

The "withdrawal" should get you a new hearing or REopening, but

Originally Posted by buddybruce

t was ruled in the employers favor.

Type in WHY the employer won, so that you can get more insight on how to keep the decision in your favor.

[Rabrrita]

Didn't we have someone who also got denied based on missing an interview/hearing because they confused the appeals? I recall there were two appeal issues and when one was closed, the claimant though it was both. I think it has something to do with the failure to look at the case number and cause of action. I think they finally prevailed after having to appeal the denial based on confusion over the closed appeal. They got another hearing but first had to win an appeal over missing the other appeal hearing.