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. However, this is the first time Complainant Kranz has appeared in a Page 6 No. 29885-A forum having jurisdiction to hear, decide and remedy claims brought under the Municipal Employment Relations Act. Therefore, the Examiner rejects this argument of Respondent and finds that the aforesaid doctrines are not applicable to the instant dispute. In support thereof, Respondent argues that the events underlying the individual claims of each Complainant are dramatically different.