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

THERESA L POZNANSKI, Claimant

TRADE ACT DECISION
Hearing No. 02006103FL


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 is eligible for additional TRA allowances for weeks 13 through 38 of 2002, but only if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed April 11, 2003
poznath . tsd : 110   TRA

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

/s/ James T. Flynn, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Trade Act of 1974, 19 USC § 2101 et seq., is a federal law intended to ameliorate the effects on workers from foreign competition which adversely affects businesses in the United States. Benefits available under the Trade Act include "trade readjustment allowances" ("TRA"), which are, like unemployment insurance benefits, weekly payments intended to partially replace lost wages. The Trade Act provides for potential eligibility for a certain number of weeks of TRA as a basic allowance; it also provides for certain additional weeks of TRA beyond the basic TRA entitlement. This case concerns the claimant's eligibility for these "Additional TRA" benefits.

One of the important provisions of the Trade Act is that payment of TRA may be made to a person only if, among other conditions, the person "has exhausted all rights to any unemployment insurance to which he was entitled (or would be entitled if he applied therefor)." 19 U. S. C. § 2291(a)(3)(B). The point of this provision is, to try to make the federal (Trade Act) money go as far as possible by ensuring that it will only be used when there are no other benefits available to tide over the unemployed person.

This aspect of the Trade Act can lead to complicated situations, since a claimant's eligibility for state unemployment insurance benefits can change from time to time. This can happen, for example, when a person who has established a state unemployment insurance benefit year eventually exhausts that entitlement and starts collecting TRA, and then qualifies to start a new state unemployment insurance benefit year. At that point, their eligibility for TRA benefits will be suspended, because they will no longer satisfy the requirement of the Trade Act that they have exhausted all rights to state benefits.

There can be a similar change when a person who has exhausted state unemployment insurance benefits and begun to collect TRA, again becomes eligible for unemployment insurance benefits under the state Temporary Supplemental Benefits ("TSB") and federal Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation ("TEUC") programs (see, Wis. Stat. § § 108.142 and 108.143). Eligibility for those benefits depends in part on whether or not certain "indicators" (or "triggers") are "on." These indicators are pegged to average unemployment rates in certain periods; see, e.g., Wis. Stat. § 108.142(1)(b). Thus, eligibility for these benefits can go "on" or "off" based on economic and labor market conditions. If a person who has exhausted regular unemployment insurance benefits is receiving TRA, and a change in unemployment rates trips an "indicator" so that the person suddenly becomes eligible for one of these supplemental or extended benefit programs, they are in the same position as someone who has qualified to start a new benefit year: they will no longer satisfy the requirement of the Trade Act that they have exhausted all rights to state benefits. Therefore, their eligibility for TRA will be suspended.

One other provision of the Trade Act is relevant here. The Trade Act provides that while a person may be eligible for up to 26 weeks "Additional TRA" benefits, their eligibility for those weeks of Additional TRA benefits is always limited to a specific 26-week period. Thus, even if they do not actually receive the Additional TRA benefits during some of the weeks in that 26-week period - because, for example, their eligibility is suspended due to their becoming eligible for some kind of state unemployment insurance benefit - they cannot receive the "remaining" Additional TRA benefits later once that 26-week period has passed.

In essence, this is what happened to the claimant here. As the ALJ explained, the claimant lost certain potential weeks of Additional TRA entitlement because she became eligible for TEUC for some weeks during her 26-week Additional TRA period.

The claimant argues that she had a TRA "contract," that she was led to believe that she was going to get a certain number of weeks of benefits she did not end up getting, and that a friend of hers who she believes was similarly situated ended up receiving more benefits.

The claimant's dissatisfaction with this situation is understandable, but it is one that is consistent with, and required by, the applicable law. The claimant did not have a "contract" that promised her a certain number of weeks of benefits come what might. While it is unfortunate that paperwork she got from the department may have led her to expect that she would receive a certain number of weeks of benefits of various kinds, there is no reason to think that these indications resulted from errors on the part of the department. There was simply an unanticipated development: a period of eligibility for TEUC which came about because of economic factors as reflected in the unemployment rate.

The commission cannot comment on the situation of the person to whom the claimant compares herself, as it does not have the specifics of that situation before it. It would only note that, as stated above, it finds the result in this case to be consistent with and in fact required by the law. It can only speculate, that there were some differences in the precise situation of the person to whom the claimant compares herself, that account for any difference in outcome.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the commission agrees with and affirms the decision of the ALJ.

 


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


uploaded 2003/04/25