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

WARREN E. LUTZ, Claimant

TRADE ACT DECISION
Hearing No. 02403855


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 position of the claimant, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The claimant worked for a business which made crushing and screening equipment. He last worked for that business on June 28, 2002, after which the business closed.

On or about March 30, 2001, the claimant was laid off from his employment with his employer. The employer found it necessary to lay off employees at this time because of lack of work. The reason that the claimant was one of the employees laid off at this time, was that he had volunteered for layoff. The claimant volunteered for layoff in response to requests by his employer for more senior employees to volunteer for layoff so that less senior employees, who would not be as financially able to weather the effects of a period of unemployment, would be spared such a layoff. Had the claimant not volunteered for a layoff at this time, another employee with less seniority would have been laid off in his place.

After being laid off on or about March 30, 2001, the claimant was off work until about April 30, 2001. The claimant established eligibility for and received unemployment insurance benefits at this time. He was then recalled to work. The claimant's employment then ended permanently when the business closed on June 28, 2002.

The business for which the claimant worked had been found by the Secretary of the U. S. Department of Labor to have been adversely affected by foreign competition for purposes of establishing the eligibility of its employees for benefits under the Trade Act of 1974. On June 19, 2002, the Secretary had issued a certification establishing an impact period for that business of March 4, 2001 through June 18, 2004. As a result, when the claimant activated his claim for unemployment insurance benefits following his permanent separation from employment in 2002, a determination had to be made by the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development ("department") concerning the claimant's potential eligibility for benefits under the Trade Act, including a determination as to the Trade Readjustment Allowances ("TRA") benefit payment rate applicable to the claimant.

There are specific provisions under the Trade Act, for determining the applicable rate of TRA benefit payments for a particular claimant. Those provisions connect that rate, to the applicable rate of unemployment insurance benefits payable to the claimant at the time of the claimant's first exhaustion of unemployment insurance benefit entitlement following their qualifying separation. The first exhaustion of unemployment insurance benefit entitlement occurs, at the latest, upon the expiration of the benefit year established following that qualifying separation. The effect of these provisions, is that the appropriate rate for TRA benefits is the UI benefit rate applicable at the time of a claimant's "first qualifying separation", which is a claimant's first separation from employment which qualifies that claimant for benefits under the Trade Act. See, Chad Severson (LIRC, February 9, 2002); Steve Mroz (LIRC, October 9, 2000). That TRA benefit rate applies to the claimant's TRA eligibility throughout the impact period established for their employer.

In this case, the claimant's separation from employment on or about March 30, 2001 was his "first qualifying separation", because it was the first time during the impact period for his employer (March 4, 2001 through June 18, 2004) that the claimant was separated from employment because of lack of work. Based on a "first qualifying separation" at that time, the department appropriately determined that the applicable TRA benefit rate for the claimant was $313/week.

The fact that the claimant's separation from employment on or about March 30, 2001 was the result of his volunteering for layoff, does not change the outcome. That layoff was a result of lack of work with the employer, and it was therefore a qualifying separation. As the administrative law judge noted in her decision, TRA benefits are payable to an individual who, because of a lack of work in adversely affected employment, is totally or partially separated from that employment.

The claimant has argued that there are other employees of his employer who had a TRA benefit rate of $324 established for them. However, this is presumably because these employees did not take a voluntary layoff in March, 2001 at the time the claimant did, and therefore had their first qualifying separation later than the claimant did, resulting in a different rate being applicable.

The commission understands that it would advantageous to the claimant if the method for computing the applicable TRA benefit rate were different. However, the commission is not free to adopt a different method than that which is called for by federal law. Those provisions are intended to have a particular effect on the rate of TRA benefit payments, in relation to the rate of unemployment insurance benefits which they follow, and the commission must apply those provisions in order to comply with the law.

The commission therefore finds that the claimant's eligibility period for Trade Readjustment Allowances is from April 1, 2001, through June 26, 2004, at a weekly benefit rate of $313.00, in accordance with the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee has a TRA eligibility period from April 1, 2001, through June 6, 2004, at a weekly benefit rate of $313.00.

Dated and mailed July 9, 2003
lutzwar . trr : 110 : TRA

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James T. Flynn, Commissioner

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

 

cc: Metso Minerals Industries, Inc.


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


uploaded 2003/07/14