Thereafter, the parties briefed the matter. Respondent basically argues that the claims of Complainant Kranz have been previously litigated upon and are therefore barred from relitigation. Respondent argues that it is the law in Wisconsin that failure to litigate an issue which might have been litigated in the former proceedings bars the litigant from litigating the issue again in subsequent proceedings. Respondent adds that these rules of law apply to State administrative agencies, as well as the courts. Complainants argue that the doctrines of issue preclusion, collateral estoppel and res judicata have no bearing on this case citing Chapter 108 of the Wisconsin Statutes, Unemployment Insurance and Reserves .
Claim preclusion is the term now applied to what used to be known as res judicata .
The Commission has applied the doctrine of res judicata since at least 1957. In addition, no material discrepancy of fact may exist between the dispute governed by the award and the subsequent dispute. Issue preclusion is the term now applied to what was formerly referred to as collateral estoppel. Although issue preclusion does not require an identity of parties, it does require actual litigation of an issue necessary to the outcome of the first action. Respondent basically argues that Complainant Kranz should not be permitted now to litigate that which she would have and could have litigated in the Unemployment Compensation hearing.