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

EVELYN E REPENSEK, Claimant

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 03608349MW


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 not eligible for Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation for Displaced Airline Related workers.

Dated and mailed May 21, 2004
repenev . usd : 132 : 1  TEUC

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The claimant has petitioned for commission review of the adverse appeal tribunal decision that found that the employee's unemployment did not result from a reduction in service by an air carrier. The employee lost her employment because the federal government replaced private security companies, including the company the employee worked for, with federal workers employed by the Transportation Security Administration. The Department of Labor has issued a number of unemployment insurance program letters regarding TEUC-A. (1)    UIPL No. 30-02 Change 3, May 7, 2003, contains the attachment, "Questions and Answers for Clarification of Section 4002 of Public Law 108-11," in which the DOL responds to questions posed by states. Question and Answer h. provide:

Question: An individual worked as a security screener at an airport. In response to the terrorist actions of September 11, 2001, this function was transferred to the newly created federal Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The individual was not hired by the TSA and is, as a result, now unemployed. Is this a qualifying reason for separation for TEUC-A purposes?

Answer: No. The above individual worked at a facility at an airport and was separated from employment due to a security measure taken in response to the terrorist actions of September 11, 2001. However, to have "qualifying employment," the individual must have been separated because of reductions in service by an air carrier or the closure of an airport in the United States. This did not occur under the scenario described. Rather, the individual was separated because the TSA took over security at the airport.

Based on the Department of Labor's interpretation of Section 4002 of Public Law 108-11, the employee did not lose her position due to a reduction in service.

For the above reasons, and for the reasons set forth in the appeal tribunal decision, the commission affirms that decision.


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

 


Footnotes:

(1)( Back ) In UIPL No. 1-96, October 5, 1995, the DOL advised states that in its opinion UIPLs have legal effect. The UIPLs are directives used to set forth official agency policy. The directives state or clarify DOL's position, particularly with respect to the interpretation of minimum Federal requirements for conformity and compliance. 

 


uploaded 2004/05/21