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

CORNELL M. STROIK, Claimant

TRADE ACT DECISION
Hearing No. 03608311MW


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, except that it makes the following modifications:

Delete the 7th and 8th paragraphs of the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW and substitute the following therefor:

The claimant knew that he was working and being paid money for that work. Furthermore, the claimant was informed and understood that if he made a false report to the department concerning his claim for benefits, he would be subject to penalties. His incorrect answers to questions as to whether he had worked and earned wages and his failure to disclose the fact that he was working and being paid in the weeks at issue, were knowing and intentional. The claimant was paid for 16 hours of work in each of the weeks at issue, at a wage rate higher than the minimum wage. If such work and earnings had been accurately reported it would have affected the amount of benefits paid in those weeks. The claimant's inaccurate reporting resulted in his receiving benefits to which he was not entitled.

It is therefore found that the claimant knowingly made a false statement or representation of a material fact and knowingly failed to disclose a material fact and as a result received payments under the Trade Act to which he was not entitled, within the meaning of 19 USC § 2315.

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge, as modified, is affirmed. Accordingly, the claimant is ineligible for any further benefits beginning with week 8 of 2003. He is required to repay the sum of $2,384.

Dated and mailed March 22, 2004
stroico . tmd : 110 :   TRA  BR 330

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

James T. Flynn, Commissioner

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The petition for commission review in this matter does not contain any argument or explanation of why the petitioner believes the decision of the administrative law judge should be reversed. Notwithstanding this, the record in this matter has been reviewed for the purpose of determining whether the administrative law judge was correct in deciding that the claimant was ineligible for all TRA benefits beginning with the first week in which he concealed material facts concerning work and earnings in the course of filing his claim. The commission has concluded that the decision was correct.

As the findings reflect, it is clear that the claimant worked and earned wages in the weeks at issue and that when he filed his benefit claims for those weeks he knowingly and intentionally misstated and concealed the facts about such work and earnings. It is clear from the evidence about the amount of work and the pay rate, that this concealment by the claimant would have affected the amount of benefits he was paid.

The Trade Act provides, in 19 USC § 2315, that if an individual has made a false statement or representation of a material fact or knowingly failed to disclose a material fact, and as a result has received any payment under the Trade Act to which the individual was not entitled, the individual shall, in addition to any other penalty provided by law, be ineligible for any further payments under the Trade Act. See, Gerald Chepil (LIRC, Nov. 19, 1997). This result is required here. Because the claimant engaged in an act of concealment affecting his benefits in week 8 of 2003, he was ineligible for any benefits under the Trade Act thereafter, and the benefits which were paid to him for weeks thereafter constitute an overpayment which must be repaid.

NOTE: The commission has modified the ALJ's decision to remove the references to Wis. Stat. § 108.04(11) and 19 USC § 2294 and to clarify the basis on which the outcome in this case properly rests.

The provisions of 19 USC § 2294 adopt state UI law provisions on availability for work and disqualification for eligibility. However, under Wis. Stat. § 108.04(11), concealment is not a qualification issue per se; it is a separate, penalty question. The Trade Act does not adopt state law provisions concerning the penalty to be imposed for concealment of material facts in connection with claiming. Rather, the Trade Act sets out its own provision governing such matters, which is found in 19 USC § 2315. It is this provision, and not Wis. Stat. § 108.04(11), which should be applied in concealment cases involving TRA benefits.


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


uploaded 2004/03/23