Rep for Unemployment Hearing

Rockie

We had an employee who appealed the unemployment decision to deny her unemployment. The hearing was scheduled and supervisor was supposed to attend.

Supervisor did not attend and, of course, unemployment will be given. In SC, the hearing officer wants the direct supervisor to attend the hearings (especially appeals) or they tend not to even consider what HR states. All HR can do it reiterate what is in the file and what policies, if any, were violated.

It's not always easy to attend these things given the fact that we have patients to see and they take priority over a terminated employee.

Do any of you have issues with supervisors not attending these hearings or how do you handle these in your state?

Jewel

We always have HR and the supervisor attend. Can you reschedule the hearings or is it possible for you to have the supervisor join in via conference call? I would check it out to see if that would be feasible. Just explain to them that the supervisors are on call and must be available for medical emergencies. Its worth a try.

Jewel

Don D

I can understanding the hearing officer 'inquiring' as to whether or not YOU are testifying from records or from first hand knowledge. He should also ask 'Do you have witnesses?' and 'Who will be testifying for the employer?' Other than that, his desire to have this or that person testify should not be relevant to the outcome of the hearing unless he has questions you cannot answer from first hand knowledge. If the case turns on evidence in the form of records from the file, it should make no difference who presents the evidence from the employer. The person testifying, whether it be HR or the janitor swears that the evidence represents truthful information from the employer's business records. And although you testify about policy and procedure, you cannot testify regarding what a supervisor said or thought or did or what prompted certain supervisory action. Of course it's always ideal to have the supv there with you.

I do take a supervisor with me if the evidence is overwhelmingly documents prepared by or initiated by the supervisor. I've found it always helps our case if that person describes the record and details why it was created and my questions get him to do that if the hearing officer does not.

I agree that if it's hard or impossible to pull staff away from the job to attend, we'll just have to weigh that against the potential of increased rates.

deniseE

We have run into similar issues....frequently evidence bearing the signature of someone not in the room to testify will be ruled inadmissable.

It is a waste of time to haul 30 people into a hearing to support written statements of information.

Generally, we just take who is available and hope for the best. Sometimes the examiner will permit telephone testimony...and sometimes not. It never hurts to ask.

HR functions mainly as the organizer for this event...since most activity leading up to termination was done by the ee's department.

pork1

ROCKIE; Ny roll is one of organizer and presenter of the case, much like that of an attorney for the employer. I organize the case present the employer case in document form and supported by the employer's supervision chain. If my case presentation is going to require the presents of a supervisor as a first hand witness of an event document and the specific information provided by the document, then I get the supervisor/manager. If an attorney wanted to have the supervisor then I would also get to have the supervisor. The supervisor has no choice in the matter. If the company looses a case, it only hurts for a little while as your insurance rate climb. The cost goes up and the employer pays untill the won /lost rate comes down as the year progresses. It pays to win and drive the rate of premium payment down!

Hope this helps!

PORK

mrbill

I have found that it is vital to have the person who has 1st hand knowledge present. If you allow your supervisors to terminate, then it is vital that they attend. I have found that written statements are worth nothing. Try to have the case re-scheduled.

Shadowfax

Assuming rules of evidence apply, then of course someone with 'first hand knowlege' is required, everything else is hearsay and no effective way to cross examine. Documents in the file can come in with any records custodian saying they are regularly kept in the course of business ops, and were made close in time to the events they reference. Most files I see are not sufficient, in and of themselves, to support a denial. If someone with direct knowlege doesn't go, then, in my opinion, may as well everyone stay at work and just let them collect.

Whirlwind

Fortunately, in my state, UI hearings are by phone. That makes it more convenient to have everyone present as needed. I've never given a supervisor a choice about whether or not to be there with me, and none of them have ever questioned it. If they did, I would kindly ask my superintendent (the big boss of us all and my direct supervisor) to require it and he wouldn't hesitate.

Don D

At least 50% of the hearings I have attended have concerned terminations due to reaching maximum points on the no-fault points system. In that context, the hearing need not be attended by anyone other than a records custodian to produce policy, describe policy, cite dates of infractions and run through them chronologically, and produce copies of receipt of policy from the personnel file, and question the claimant. Some have involved serious violation of safety or drug/alcohol policy and I have that responsibility so don't need anyone else there for that unless I need someone who witnessed the violation other than me.

With any other hearing a person in their immediate chain of command attends with me, as a witness for me to call, never as the lead company spokesman.

In many states, strict rules of evidence do not apply in UI hearings. In those states one person can produce a memo or warning from the file and represent it as a true course-of-business record.

My very most favorite question I ask of the claimant in almost every hearing when they get off on a rabbit trail about 'somebody said or somebody did or so and so was...' is, "And do you have that person here with you today as a witness?"