STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION
P O BOX 8126, MADISON, WI 53708-8126 (608/266-9850)

JOSEPH G. MARTIN, Claimant

TRADE ACT DECISION
Hearing No. 01201393EC


An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Division of Unemployment Insurance of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and conclusion in that decision as its own.

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the claimant's request for job search allowances dated July 31, 2001, is denied.

Dated and mailed November 23, 2001
martijo . tsd : 110 :  

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Under the federal regulations which govern administration of benefits under the Trade Act, "an application [for job search allowances] must be submitted to a State agency before the job search begins for the job search allowance to be granted". 20 Code of Federal Regulations § 617.31(b)(emphasis added). It is undisputed, that the claimant did not complete an application for job search allowances before he took his trip to Las Vegas.

In his petition for commission review, the claimant argues that he tried to get approval for his job search arranged before he left, but that the local TAA representative was hard to work with and the claimant felt that due to what he calls her "micro-management controlling nature", he believed it would be a long drawn out process. He also complains that he felt like he was getting "the royal run around" and that he was "thoroughly disgusted" by the response he got from her.

Based on its review of the evidence, the commission does not believe that the claimant's dissatisfaction with the way the TAA representative handled his inquiry, is justified. When the claimant came in to inquire about doing a job search in Las Vegas, the TAA representative told the claimant that he needed to have a job interview set up which the TAA representative would then need to verify, and that the TAA representative would then also have to contact the Job Service Center in Las Vegas. This was not a "run around", but a correct description of the applicable legal requirements for approving a job search. Despite being provided this correct information, the claimant did not get back to the TAA representative with the information about a scheduled job interview which she had told him she needed. When he contacted her after his trip to Las Vegas, and she asked him why he had not gotten back in touch with her before he left, he told her that "he didn't have time to wait for all those regulations".

The commission is therefore not persuaded that the claimant's failure to comply with the requirement that an application be filed before a job search is started, was the fault of the department.

The claimant also argues that the way he understands the process, he should have needed preapproval only if he was asking for funds for the job search in advance. This understanding is incorrect. The applicable regulations clearly provide that in order for job search allowances to be paid at all, the application must be filed before the job search is conducted.

Besides that fact that claimant's application for job search allowances was not submitted before the job search began, claimant's job search was also not completed within the time which the applicable regulations set as the limit for completion of such a job search. Job search allowance eligibility requires "completion of the job search within a reasonable period not exceeding 30 days after the day on which the job search began" 20 C.F.R. § 617.32(a)(5) (emphasis added).

The claimant argues that under the circumstances, the amount of time he spent on this job search was not unreasonable. However, because the regulation expressly states that the period cannot exceed 30 days after the day on which the job search began, neither the department nor the commission are allowed to focus simply on the word "reasonable" and construe it as allowing a longer job search here. The 30-day period is a fixed and legally binding limit. Here, according to the Request For Job Search allowance form which the claimant signed after he returned from his trip (Ex. 10), the claimant departed on June 11, 2001, and returned on July 15, 2001. The claimant's job search was therefore not completed within 30 days after the day on which the job search began.

It is clear from his petition for review, that the claimant believes that the federal regulations which have been applied to his claim, are unreasonable. However, neither the department nor the commission have the legal authority to disregard the applicable regulations based on their opinions about the reasonableness of a result arrived at by following those regulations.

For the foregoing reasons, the commission affirms the decision of the Administrative Law Judge.

cc: Cheryl Steliga, Marquip Inc., Phillips, WI 54555-0028


[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]


uploaded 2001/11/26