Kirby Grill Management, Inc v MESC
Digest no. 2.21
Cite as: Kirby Grill Mgt, Inc v MESC, unpublished per curiam Court of Appeals, issued July 28, 1995 (Docket No. 166288).
Appeal pending: No
Employer: Kirby Grill Management, Inc.
Docket no.: L91-00461-2192
Date of decision: July 28, 1995
COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Good cause for late protest of a determination of successorship may be found where the employer submitted a revised registration report containing additional or corrected information regarding the percentage of assets acquired.
FACTS: In May, 1990 employer submitted a Liability Registration Report in which it indicated it had acquired 100% of predecessor Kings Manor. Employer was mailed a Notice of Successorship on June 22, 1990, which indicated that employer had purchased more than 75% of the assets of its predecessor. This was not protested until September, 1990. Request for redetermination denied on October 5, 1990, because employer failed to protest within thirty days or establish good cause for late protest. Employer submitted revised registration report showing it only acquired 15% of Kings Manor instead of the 100% in the original registration. Employer’s position is that submission of revised registration report meets good cause standard set forth in Unemployment Agency Administrative Rule 270(1)(b).
DECISION: Reversed and remanded for determination of whether good cause exists for reconsideration under Rule 270(1)(b).
RATIONALE: Under the statute, the Agency is authorized to redetermine a prior successorship determination for any “good cause” shown. The focus of a good cause inquiry is not limited to whether the employer could show good cause for not filing its protest within thirty days. Limiting the Agency’s discretion to deciding if there is good cause for untimely filing is overly technical and bureaucratic especially as Rule 270 expressly indicates good cause can be established on the basis of “additional or corrected information.” “That is, the additional or corrected information can provide the necessary good cause to reconsider the successorship determination and, hence, the all-important rate determination.”
Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 7/99