Should a Man or woman ask for the hearing officers oath of office? so that all rights will be given and not just those rights they want or do not want to use?

101 INDEPENDENCE OF APPEAL TRIBUNALS

1. It is a basic requisite for a fair hearing that a Hearing Officer be free to make a decision upon the merits of a case by exercising his/her own judgment.

2. In making decisions in cases involving unemployment insurance, a Hearing Officer is required to follow the Statute and the Commission rules and policies governing the Texas unemployment insurance program. A Hearing Officer is also required to adhere to court and Commission decisions interpreting these statutes, rules and policies. Within these limits, however, he/she is not bound to uphold the decision of a claims examiner. It is his/her duty to hear and examine all pertinent evidence and to render a fair and impartial decision based on that evidence.

3. While a Hearing Officer must follow precedents set by the Commission and the state courts, the Hearing Officer has some latitude in determining whether or not a particular case falls within the precedents established by the Commission and the courts. The facts in a case before the Hearing Officer may be distinguishable from those present in the precedent decision. Within reasonable limitations, factual differences in cases will support different conclusions. The Hearing Officer should be thoroughly familiar with precedent decisions so that he/she will be alert to situations that are distinguishable from established precedents.

if the only jurisdiction is for the matter from which the appeal was taken
and there was a suspension with out pay for 15 days, and then was told to come back to work and was then fired. would not the jurisdiction only be with the matter of of why the man or women was fired and not the suspension?

Appeal No. 85-10309-10-092785. The claimant was originally separated from work when he was suspended for one week without pay after his employer discovered that the claimant had misappro-priated equipment from the employer several years earlier. After the claimant served his week of suspension without pay and was returned to work for three weeks, the employer's higher manage-ment reversed the claimant's original disciplinary suspension and discharged the claimant. HELD: The claimant's original suspen-sion from work without pay constituted a work separation. When the employer allowed the claimant to return to work for three weeks after one week of suspension without pay, the employer effectively forgave the claimant's previous act of misconduct. No disqualification under Section 207.044 of the Act. (Cross-referenced under TPU 80.05.)

307 WHAT THE HEARING SHOULD COVER

1. The Hearing Officer has jurisdiction only over the matter from which the appeal was taken. No additional issues should be heard or decided without first giving notice of such issue to the parties, and without obtaining their agreement to proceed on that issue (waiving notice). Such waiver must be obtained on jurisdictional issues, such as timeliness of the appeal, but is not necessary for issues of incorrect last employer or chargeback. See additional information on waiving notice under Section 307.11.


The case that I am trying to help a woman with has to do with that a General Manager had told her supervisor to tell her that she had to remove her car from the place of work, the woman had asked her manger if she could leave it there till payday and was told it was ok to do so.

however the Supervisor told the woman that the general manger said he would not only have the car towed but that he would flatten her tires, a police report was made the same day.

Now under the employer own policy states that when a wrongdoing happens the employee must file a statement with the employer.
However when this was done the employee was given a suspension of 15 days and was told that she would have to call before coming back to work.
the woman did call and was told to come back to work by the manager once at work for 2 hours the general manger came in and fired her.

Now the employer has told the Texas workforce that she was fired for misconduct.
however there was never any thing in writing at any time.

and so she had a disqualification made on her and had to do a appeal.
under TWC own rules:
secret policies are useless – employees should of course have access to whatever policies will apply to them - an unknown policy cannot be used against an ex-employee in an unemployment claim or any other kind of employment-related claim or lawsuit.


the general manager was given a warring by the police, but the next day when she made her statement about the wrong doing the general manager suspend her,


I have shown over 16 Appeal case's to the investigator and no help. all show that what the woman did was not misconduct but was the policies of the employer and to not do it would have gotten the woman fired.

this on top that the general manger did not have the right to remove the car with out a written notice this is found under the Texas towing Act. there are no signs, and there was no other warning given.

the employer has shown no policies or warnings in the investigation what so ever other than statements that the general manager had made for 3 other works to sign that stated that he never said he would flatten her tires.

but only one of the workers was even on duty at the time.
the manger now has a statement that he never had the conversation and has a witness that the conversation did not happen. I have to ask how can some one witness a conversation that never happen. however this same manager talked to the police officer and stated that he had heard by 3rd person of what was said. now the police report is in the file now but the investigator did not file it. also the statement of the woman was not filed into the record. it is now

the point must be made that this woman asked the TWC for a subpoena of the employers policies and was told that they would not do that.

all So she asked for time recorders that would show that the workers where not even at work on that day and was told no by TWC.
How there is going to be a fair hearing without evidence I dont know.