771 Hearing Record; Transcripts

The digital recording of a hearing on probable cause was lost due to a computer problem. The parties did not reach a stipulation regarding the content of the lost testimony, and the only substitute for the recording was a two-page summary written by the Administrative Law Judge. The summary was not sufficient to allow the commission to fully and fairly evaluate the findings and conclusions of the administrative law judge, making it necessary to remand for a new hearing on probable cause. Okerlund v. The Berquist Company (LIRC, 07/13/17).

Because of the poor quality of the recording of the hearing, the Division did not produce a summary of proceedings for the Commission. Instead, the ALJ produced a summary based on notes the ALJ took at the hearing. The Commission found the recording to be audible in part. Based on its auditing of the recording, both to check the accuracy of the ALJ’s notes and to glean additional testimony that was not contained in those notes, the Commission concluded that the record, while incomplete, was sufficient to allow it to fully and fairly evaluate the findings and conclusions of the ALJ. A remand for a repeat of the testimony was unnecessary. Schloemer v. Cupola House (LIRC, 06/14/13).

The decision of the Administrative Law Judge was set aside and the case was remanded to the Equal Rights Division for a new hearing where the testimony of the Complainant was not recorded and the Administrative Law Judge was not able to provide his own handwritten notes regarding the testimony. Dygon v. Smurfit Stone Container Corp. (LIRC, 02/28/07).

The hearing transcript is not part of the decision which is issued by the Equal Rights Division. Moreno v. Wis. Elec. Power Co. (LIRC, 06/21/96).

The Labor and Industry Review Commission would not give consideration to a transcript of the hearing which was not prepared by an independent, reputable court reporter or transcriptionist and that did not include a certification by the transcriptionist that it was an original, verbatim transcript of the proceedings, as required by sec. ILHR 218.19(2), Wis. Admin. Code. Maxberry v. Aldridge, Inc. (LIRC, 05/28/96).

The fact that a portion of a tape recording of the hearing was blank had no effect on the Labor and Industry Review Commission’s ability to complete a full and fair review where the Commission had available to it the summary of proceedings prepared by the Administrative Law Judge. Popp v. Rhinelander Paper Co. (LIRC, 07/28/95).

The case was remanded for a new hearing where part of the original hearing was either not tape recorded, or the tape recording of that part of the hearing was either destroyed or lost. Saccomandi v. E. Pocus & Co. (LIRC, 09/09/93).

LIRC would not consider the partial transcripts filed by the Respondent since they were not a transcription of the entire hearing, and they lacked a sworn certification by the transcriptionist that they represented an accurate transcription of the taped record. The certification must be sworn and must represent that the person signing the certification was actually the transcriber, i.e., the person who transcribed the transcript. Crosby v. Intertractor America Corp. (LIRC, 05/21/93).

The Commission will not consider a transcript which does not appear to be a verbatim record of the testimony given at the hearing. Crawford v. School Dist. of Beloit (LIRC, 11/08/91).

The hearing was held twice because of equipment malfunction. The Complainant asserted that the testimony of one of the Respondent's witnesses changed between the first and the second hearing. Even though the testimony of the first hearing was lost, the Complainant was not prejudiced since the Complainant's attorney had the opportunity to cross-examine that witness and could have attempted to impeach her prior testimony at the second hearing. Smith v. Root River Inn (LIRC, 08/21/91).

Parties are entitled to inspect and copy transcripts which are filed with the Equal Rights Division since they are public records.Duarte-Vestar v. Goodwill Indus. (LIRC, 11/09/90).

A court reporter was adequately appointed by the Department as required by sec. 111.39(4)(b), Stats., where: (1) the Equal Rights Division sent the parties a notice indicating that any party wishing to engage a court reporter at the hearing would be allowed to do so, (2) the Administrative Law Judge stated on the record that a court reporter was recording the proceedings, and (3) the court reporter did in fact take down the entire proceedings. Duarte-Vestar v. Goodwill Indus. (LIRC, 11/09/90).

A case was remanded for rehearing where a portion of the Complainant's testimony was not recorded. Krenz v. Lauer's Food Mkt. (LIRC, 09/27/90).

Two court reporters ended up being present and reporting the hearing, and both filed transcripts with the Equal Rights Division. The Administrative Law Judge’s decision was based on one of the transcripts, the other transcript not having been filed until after he issued his decision. Notwithstanding that there were some discrepancies in the two transcripts, they were not significant to the decision, and did not justify reversal. Campbell v. LIRC (Milwaukee Co. Cir. Ct., 02/19/88).

No due process rights of the Complainant were violated when the Hearing Examiner, who had initially failed to turn on the tape recorder, corrected the problem by having the testimony which had not been recorded repeated. Hill v. LIRC (Milwaukee Co. Cir. Ct., 09/21/85).

Rehearing was granted where the stenographic record of the hearing was lost. Hill v. Kitchen Reddy Foods (DILHR, 04/17/75).