Section 33
PROCEDURE, Reopening, Notice of issues
CITE AS: Selonke v Michigan National Bank, unpublished per curiam Court of Appeals March 19, 1999 (No. 201514).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Michael A. Selonke
Employer: Michigan National Bank
Docket No. B92-35032-RRR-132922W
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Where the issue noticed was misconduct, the allegations of threats did not constitute a new issue, therefore good cause for reopening was not established.
FACTS: The employer discharged claimant for yelling vulgarities and obscenities at Jason Trautz, vice-president of technical services. Mr. Trautz testified the claimant made certain statements which he perceived as threats. Claimant admitted making some statements and denied others. The Referee found the claimant disqualified for misconduct. The Board dismissed claimant's untimely appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Claimant then requested a reopening of the Referee decision claiming the allegation of threats against Mr. Trautz was a new issue he had not been aware of prior to the Referee hearing. The Referee denied the claimant's reopening request. On appeal, the Board affirmed the Referee. But, the circuit court agreed with claimant finding the allegation of threats constituted a new issue and the claimant should have had an opportunity for an adjournment. The court remanded.
DECISION: Circuit court reversed. Good cause for reopening not established.
RATIONALE: Rule 109 of the Rules of Practice defines the term "good cause." The claimant claimed he had a witness who could clear him of the allegations of threats. The claimant did not show he had newly discovered material evidence since there is no indication he was unaware of the alleged exculpatory witness at the time of the hearing. Claimant has not shown a legitimate inability to act sooner. The notice of hearing stated the issue was misconduct. Documentary evidence in the record stated the claimant verbally attacked Mr. Trautz. The claimant admitted making statements Mr. Trautz perceived as threats. The basic issue of whether the claimant was discharged for misconduct remained the same. A new issue did not arise at the Referee hearing, and the claimant did not establish good cause for reopening.
7/99
22, 24: K