Opinion
Sept. 4, 1974. Not Seclected for Official Publication.
Robert L. Eckelberry, Englewood, for petitioner.
John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Deputy Atty. Gen., Robert L. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents Industrial Commission of the State of Colorado (Ex-Officio Unemployment Compensation Commission).
VAN CISE, Judge.
Petitioner, Bianco, claimed unemployment compensation benefits following his discharge by his employer, Glenwood Medical Association. Hearings were hold before a referee who found that Bianco had been terminated for careless and shoddy work and was disqualified from receipt of benefits for a period of 18 weeks. The Industrial Commission (Ex-Officio Unemployment Compensation Commission) affirmed the decision of the referee. Bianco seeks review of that final order. We affirm.
Bianco asserts that the findings of fact by the Industrial Commission were not supported by the evidence and that he did not receive a fair hearing on his claim. We find no merit in either contention.
There is conflicting testimony in the record in regard to the manner in which Bianco performed his duties. The findings made by the Commission on this factual issue are supported by substantial evidence and are therefore binding on this court. Stensvad v. Industrial Commission, 167 Colo. 140, 445 P.2d 898; Tague v. Coors Porcelain Co., 30 Colo.App. 158 490 P.2d 96; C.R.S.1963, 82--5--11.
C.R.S.1963, 82--5--4, specifies that the parties shall be afforded 'reasonable opportunity for fair hearing.' In this instance, a 'split hearing' procedure was used by the Commission. One hearing was held in Denver, Bianco's new place of residence following his discharge, for claimant's testimony. A second hearing was held in Glenwood Springs, the place of employment and of Bianco's termination, for employer's testimony. Written notice of each hearing was duly served on Bianco. Each notice specified the time, place and nature of the hearing, and contained detailed instructions to the claimant as to what he should bring, what he should be prepared on, and his rights to have a representative with him and to have witnesses, or their depositions or affidavits, to support his position or to refute statements of others.
Bianco appeared and participated in the first hearing in Denver, and the employer was not present. At the conclusion of that hearing, the referee again advised him of his rights, orally.
Bianco was notified of the second hearing set in Glenwood Springs, but did not attend. The employer was represented there by one of its officers.
From the above it is clear that the requirements of the statute of 'a reasonable opportunity for fair hearing' were met. See White v. Director of Division of Labor, 30 Colo.App. 393, 493 P.2d 676.
Order affirmed.
COYTE and RULAND, JJ., concur.