Claimants tell Texas Workforce Commission of alleged employer forgeries and procedural errors in appeals

Three people who identified themselves during the public-comment period told the Texas Workforce Commission on March 1 that procedural problems and employer misconduct led to wrongful denials of unemployment benefits.

Daniel Campos said his employer submitted a false claim to TWC alleging illegal drug use and that the employer forged signatures on paperwork. Campos said he has a video that would rebut the employer’s account but that the file is too large to transmit to TWC, and he asked the commission to investigate the employer’s statements and the paperwork he alleges were forged. “The claim the employer stated about me having illegal drugs is completely fabricated,” Campos said in his remarks.

Vicky Flower, identifying herself as a concerned citizen, told commissioners that a prior tribunal hearing in October — which she said neither the claimant nor the employer attended — proceeded after a TWC error and that the hearing officer showed bias during a subsequent proceeding. Flower said the commission’s recent split decision effectively reverted the case to the tribunal hearing and that she will submit additional testimony, documentation and a timely request for hearing asking the commission to overturn prior rulings. She described the last hearing as “leading and biased” and said TWC had not carried the burden of proof to show timely notice.

Denzel Tucker said his separation was not a voluntary quit but resulted from reduced hours; he said he did not submit a resignation, that he was on the schedule at separation and that Genesco (the parent company noted during his remarks) subsequently reversed the quit information in its records. Tucker told the commission he had documentation supporting his account and asked that the determination be reversed.

Commission staff acknowledged the comments during the public-comment period and the commission proceeded to its agenda items. Commissioners did not take immediate formal action on the individual cases during the public-comment time, but several of the topics raised (timeliness, evidence submission, and reopening petitions) resurfaced later in the docket-13 case discussions.

The commission’s public comment record shows the claimants asked for further review or investigation; the commission’s formal decisions on related cases were handled during the docket items later in the meeting.