DIGEST OF ADJUDICATION PRECEDENTS PR
PR-2 (01/11)
Subsequently, the Referee conducted a hearing at which only the claimant appeared. On the basis of the evidence presented, the
Referee issued a decision allowing benefits to the claimant. The employer then filed an appeal to the Board of Review, expressing
a desire to present evidence at a hearing.
HELD: Agency Rule 2720.205(c) reads, in pertinent part:
In the event that a claimant appeals an Adjudicator's determination regarding a separation issue...and where the
employer from which the separation occurred is not a party, such employer will receive notice of hearing which
he may attend as a nonparty and present such facts and evidence as he may possess.
Therefore, even though the employer may have been a nonparty, the employer still should have been afforded an opportunity to
appear at the hearing and present such facts and evidence as it possessed. The decision of the Referee was set aside, and the case
was remanded.
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Procedure/PR 25.05
DOCKET/DATE ABR-85-7321/2-28-86
AUTHORITY 56 Ill. Adm. Code 2720.5
TITLE Appearance
SUBTITLE By Telephone
CROSS-REFERENCE PR 400.05, Representation, By an Agent
On August 28, 1985, a hearing was conducted, by telephone, to consider a work separation issue. The claimant appeared and
testified. The employer was represented at the hearing by a tax service which specialized in unemployment insurance matters.
Based upon the evidence presented by the claimant and the employer's representative, the Referee determined that the claimant was
eligible for benefits without disqualification.
The employer (itself) appealed, stating:
It is the employer's request that a rescheduled hearing be permitted so that the employer can give his testimony.
The reason why the employer did not participate in the hearing was because the tax agency which represents the
employer forgot to give the Referee the phone number for the telephone hearing ...
HELD: Agency Rule 2720.5, Service of Notices, Decisions, Orders, reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
b) A person may designate an agent...In such cases, notice to the agent so designated is notice to the person...
In the instant case, the employer was represented at the hearing by its duly appointed agent, which had received notice of the
hearing. Under Rule 2720.5 - and under general principles of Agency Law - this was equivalent to the employer itself having
received notice, and having appeared at the hearing. Therefore, the employer's request for a rescheduled hearing, on the basis of its
not having appeared at the originally scheduled hearing, was without merit. The request was denied.
