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

JOSEPH A BEDNAROWSKI, Claimant

Involving

TRADE ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDED

TRADE ACT DECISION
Hearing No. 04400647AP


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 ineligible for Trade Readjustment Allowances in week 52 of 2003, and weeks 1 through 3 of 2004. The claimant is required to repay $104.00.

Dated and mailed July 28, 2004
bednajo . usd : 175 : 8  TRA

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The applicant asserts in his petition for commission review the administrative law judge erred in determining he was ineligible for TRA benefits for weeks 52 of 2003 and weeks 1 through 3 of 2004. The applicant asserts that although he was on a scheduled Christmas break from classes from December 19, 2003 through January 19, 2004, he believes he should be eligible for TRA benefits for that time period because he picked up some work in his field of study during the break from classes. The claimant stated that he was told by Ms. Alderman, the TRA coordinator in the Fond du Lac office, that there is a two or three month grace period for workplace training and it would have the same effects as going to school.

However, pursuant to Section 233(f) of the Trade Act of 1974 as amended, a worker shall be treated as participating in training during any week which is a part of a break in training that does not exceed 14 days. The Act provides that in establishing the number of days in a break in training, all calendar days are included in the calculation beginning with the first day following the last day of class preceding the training break and ending with the last date, but starting the first class day after the end of the training break. Any Saturday, Sunday or any state or national holiday occurring during this scheduled break in training on which training would not be normally scheduled in the training program if there were no break in training, is not counted in determining the number of days in the break. In this case, excluding the Christmas and New Year's holidays as well as weekends, there were 18 days in the break in training.

There is nothing in the Trade Act of 1974 which provides that work experience or on the job training may be substituted for the approved training during any period of a scheduled break. The Trade Act does not provide any exception for work experience during a scheduled break in order to qualify for benefits. Also, the regulations and rules do not provide for this exception. Therefore, the commission does not find any basis in the statutes or the administrative rules which provide that the applicant is eligible since he worked in a related field during the regularly scheduled break from classes. Therefore, the commission affirms the administrative law judge's order that the claimant was ineligible for TRA benefits during the period of the break from his approved training in week 52 of 2003 and weeks 1 through 3 of 2004.


cc: Giddings & Lewis, Inc.


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


uploaded 2004/08/09