BEFORE THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION

WILLIAM E. DONNELL, Claimant

TRADE ACT DECISION
Hearing No. 93600692MW


Pursuant to the timely petition for review filed in the above-captioned matter, the commission has considered the petition and all relief requested. The commission has reviewed the applicable records and evidence and finds that the appeal tribunal's findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported thereby. The commission therefore adopts the findings and conclusions of the appeal tribunal as its own.

DECISION

The decision of the appeal tribunal is affirmed. Accordingly, the claimant is ineligible to receive Trade Readjustment Act benefits

Dated and mailed June 3, 1993
110 : CD8155  TRA

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Chairman

/s/ Richard T. Kreul, Commissioner

/s/ James R. Meier, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In order to establish eligibility for benefits under the Trade Act of 1974 as amended, a claimant must demonstrate that he or she suffered a separation from employment due to lack of work during the two year "impact period." The applicable impact period in this case is January 17, 1985 through January 16, 1987. The commission concludes that the claimant failed to carry his burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any separations from work he suffered during this period were caused by lack of work as opposed to industrial injuries and medical leaves of absence. The commission considers the evidence offered by the employer's witness, that there were some "short weeks" and one week layoffs due to lack of work in 1985, to be too indefinite to adequately overcome the suggestion raised by other evidence, specifically the affirmative declarations made in claimant's application for TRA benefits, that the claimant's separations from work were due to reasons other than lack of work. In his application for TRA benefits, the claimant asserted that his first separation from employment after the impact date did not occur until March 28, 1985, and that the separation was not for lack of work but because of industrial injury. This is inconsistent with the suggestion which the claimant was apparently trying to make when he circled a number of entries on page 11 of Exhibit 4, apparently to identify periods off work due to lack of work, some of which predate March 28, 1985.

Considering the evidence in the record as a whole, the commission is satisfied that the evidence tending to establish that claimant may have suffered separations due to lack of work is simply too indefinite and equivocal to sustain claimant's burden. The commission is not persuaded that there were separations due to lack of work affecting claimant during the impact period.

cc: 
CFWA
Attn John Gardner


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


uploaded 2004/06/03

TRA - separation not because of lack of work