Employer didn't show: Still issues it appears (claim, qualify, state)

[Waimeacoffee]

I, the ex-employee am the claimant and the employer didn't show at hearing 4 days previous. ALJ started the hearing at took my testimony, and my witness. My detrimental flaw it seems on reflection is :1.)I did not have all of the important chronological dates in order. Painstakingly, the ALJ, and I had to go through this, and it was stressful and embarrassing. 2.)I didn't ask for a leave of absence. This is in regards to 1256. I called the appeal board the next day to ask if employer had given a story for being late. The man on the phone said, "No", and that the case was finalized, but was too early for a decision. Seeing that it is finalized, and I was not offered the opportunity to cross examine any thing the employer may of had against me, I would like to know if the 2 issues of mine, not having dates ready & mainly not asking for a leave of absents would negate the employers no show.
Any bright ideas out there?

[Rabrrita]

It all depends on the basis of your unemployment. Why you're unemployed, how it came about, who's appealing what, etc...

Normally, if you were terminated by the employer, if they fail to appear at the hearing, you win by default. Not being offered the opportunity to cross examine the employer is totally immaterial as there will be NO evidence against you to cross examine. Can't introduce or use evidence at a hearing if they are not present to do so. No employer = no admissible evidence = no case made against you = you get benefits by default! However, if you voluntarily disclosed information or previously wrote or said something to unemployment, your own statements or words is considered admissible evidence which can be used against you even if your employer was a no-show.

Now, in a quit, the burden shifts to you. Depending on the circumstances around your quit, you may shoulder all the requirements to show the quit, the reasoning and the process was not disqualifying. If there's a question of facts that differ from your employer's version and it's a critical element between qualifying or being disqualified, your employer will need to be present to have their version admitted as admissible evidence to be considered. If they are a no show, your version of events as a first person testifying, holds all the weight. But, as in a termination, anything you said, wrote or voluntarily blabbed about at the hearing, can be used against you.

So, some details of your situation is needed in order to say where you stand.

[the11joker]

Agreed above. I was in the same situation where the employer didn’t show. I had the examination and kept it very basic as to not allow for any extra questions to arise. I ended up winning and my employer actually wrote to try and reschedule the hearing due to missing the interview because of an FDA audit, however, the office wrote back stating that the employer was supposed to notify them ahead of time if they needed to reschedule.

Just added the extra details for anyone else in the future

[Rabrrita]

Yep, in a firing, until the former employer states their case and any objections to their testimony or evidence you been properly ruled on by the ALJ and you had your chance to cross examine them, you have absolutely nothing to say. When it's an employer no-show, you really have little to say as they presented nothing to act upon. Now, the ALJ can ask some questions based on what the claimant wrote on the application, but that is so easy to overcome just by doing what you did and not give them anything to latch onto by keeping it basic.

I think the problem is many claimants are under some mistaken impression they have to prove they deserve benefits. They are ignorant of the fact that benefits are paid by default. So a person is paid unless a valid case is made that meets the State's statutory definition and standard of a disqualification. Very hard, if not impossible to do when an employer is a no-show! Almost every time, there is an employer no-show and the person was denied benefits, it was due to something the claimant said, admitted to or tried justify. Claimant's can be their own worst enemy.