In the first place, you do not have to have legal representation to do a fact finding. It is just that, an initial 'fact finding' interview, done by the ajudicator before making the first or initial decision. They are looking at what evidence the employer has that they did have a good misconduct reason to terminate you, what evidence you have that you did not commit misconduct. It is a very informal proceding, and is not done in every case. If you wanted to have an attorney present, fine, if you don't, you're probably just as well off.
As you say an attorney she talked to very frankly and honestly told her, the amount of money you would get if approved for unemployment isn't enough to interest any attorney in representing you who's out to really make a profit, and if you check out what you are actually going to receive, even if you receive maximum benefits, vs. what an attorney is going to charge to represent you, it comes out to sort of overkill.
Also, you are, if you are reasonably intelligent and able to speak logically and answer questions, you're probably going to be able to represent yourself adequately in this situation. These hearings are not even the formal "appeals hearing," which is held after the initial decision and may be done at the request of either party.
They may actually do a fact finding over the telephone. They may actually
elect not to do one, merely to use the information that was provided at the time the claim was taken. After talking to the employer, if an issue was brought up that had not been mentioned by the claimant when filing the claim, ex: "The employer says they have a videotape of you stealing money from the change kitty in the breakroom. You said you were let go for absenteeism. Did they mention this issue when you were terminated?"
This is the type of issue that may cause the ajudicator to want to do a fact finding interview before that first decision.
After the initial decision is issued, then either party has a certain time frame in which they can file an appeal if they disagree with the decision. This is the actual "appeals hearing" where evidence is presented before an appeals officer of some kind. This is the time when you'd want an attorney if you choose to use one.
And yes, there is a limit to when you can actually cancel this hearing. Because if they allowed people to cancel freely on the "day of" for any but a truly emergency reason, then they'd be chasing their tails coming and going, as the civil court system is.
If you had been hit by a car on the way to the proceeding, were in the hospital, you could have been granted an emergency continuation, but "I can't come, my attorney can't be there," is usually enough to get a continuation only if you show up, and explain at the actual hearing that your attorney couldn't be there, but not enough to cancel or reschedule the process if you just call in. But remember, we're not even talking about this Appeals hearing yet, we're still talking about the preliminaries to the initial decision, the optional fact finding hearing that this ajudicator wanted to do before issuing the first decision.
Though lately in the terrible economy, timeliness has slipped a lot, the unemployment system is under a time restricted guideline, they are required to do the best they can to get these hearings and decisions done within a certain time period. Else what would keep an employer from cancelling the hearings again and again, prohibiting the person from receiving their unemployment until they give up and go away? This way of operating is much more for the benefit of the claimant than the employer.
The ajudicator is required to get the initial decision out within about two weeks of the claim being filed. If one or both of the parties refuse to participate in the fact finding hearing, they'll simply issue a decision, and let the parties work it out in the appeals hearing.
My guess is this person will very soon receive a decision, based upon the information that the ajudicator had on hand at the time of the decision. And she may, of course, appeal this decision if it doesn't suit her. At this time, she may have legal representation, but she needs to get it lined up and request all changes in the time of the hearing well in advance.
If she starts squalling about this initial decision, about how she was denied the right to legal counsel during her fact finding interveiw, about how you folks want to sue somebody about this outrageous miscarriage of justice, you'll do nothing but muddy the waters and slow things down. There's no right of appeal to this, it wasn't that important, she should have just gone on to the interview (note, interview, not court hearing or formal trial) and answered the ajudicator's questions.
Prejudice the system against her? No, they've seen about every kind of dumbness and rhetoric, are very used to it,and she'll be ignored as another person who does not understand the system, which will continue to work the same way it has always worked.
But believe me, she needs to save her thunder for the appeals hearing, at which she can have legal representation if she wants it, though even these hearings are not set up to require it.
What will determine whether this person is approved for unemployment or not has already happened. Whether the company had a valid misconduct reason to terminate her, with adequate proof, usually with warnings, it all has already happened. All that will happen now is that this information will be examined and processed. An attorney cannot change what has happened or change the evidence, they can only present it for you. And most people could do this for themselves. This is not a court trial situation where brilliant use of the law can save the day even when the client is guilty or save the innocent.
But all your outrage is very premature. In the first place, she hasn't even received an initial decision approving or denying benefits yet. She should get that soon.
.
