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

JASON D JANAS, Employee

ALRO STEEL CORP, Employer

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 12603261MW


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 makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The employee most recently began receiving unemployment benefits in week 31 of 2010. His most recent benefit year ended in week 14 of 2011. The employee exhausted his eligibility for regular, emergency, and extended unemployment benefits in week 11 of 2012. As of week 12 of 2012, the week ending March 24, 2012, the only unemployment benefits for which the employee was potentially eligible were extended training benefits.

To be eligible for extended training benefits under Wis. Stat. § 108.06(7), a claimant must meet a number of conditions. Namely, a claimant must have exhausted all rights to state and federal unemployment benefits; must be otherwise eligible for benefits; if not in a current benefit year, must have a benefit year that ended no earlier than 52 weeks prior to the week for which the claimant first claimed extended training benefits; must not be receiving stipends or other training allowances; and must be currently enrolled in approved training, as defined in Wis. Stat. § 108.04(16). All criteria must be met.

The issue to be decided is whether the employee was eligible for extended training benefits as of week 12 of 2012.

In March 2012, the employee was a full-time student at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, seeking a bachelor's degree in sociology. The employee is working with the Department of Workforce Development (DWD), Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR), to be trained in a new field of work. He plans to become a case worker or intake specialist. The employee suffered a work-related injury and can no longer work in manufacturing due to his disabilities and medical restrictions. When the employee finishes his schooling in or about 2013, DVR will assist him in locating employment.

As of week 12 of 2012, the first week the employee filed a claim for extended training benefits, the employee had exhausted his rights to regular, emergency, and extended unemployment benefits. He was otherwise eligible for benefits, and his benefit year had ended within the previous 52 weeks. The employee is not known to be receiving any stipends or other training allowances. Therefore, if the employee's schooling is "approved training," as defined in Wis. Stat. § 108.04(16), he will have met the requirements of the extended training benefits statute.

Wisconsin Stat. § 108.04(16) provides:

(16) APPROVED TRAINING. (a) In this subsection, "approved training" means:

1. A course of vocational training or basic education which is a prerequisite to such training in which an individual is enrolled if:

a. The course is expected to increase the individual's opportunities to obtain employment;

b. The course is given by a school established under s. 38.02 or another training institution approved by the department;

c. The individual is enrolled full time as determined by the training institution;

d. The course does not grant substantial credit leading to a bachelor's or higher degree; and

e. The individual is attending regularly and making satisfactory progress in the course.

2. A program administered by the department for the training of unemployed workers, other than the youth apprenticeship program under s. 106.13;

3. The plan of any state for training under the federal trade act, 19 USC 2296; or

4. A plan for training approved under the federal workforce investment act, 29 USC 2822.

The appeal tribunal found that, because the employee was enrolled in a full-time course of study at a local university working toward his bachelor of science degree, his course of study is not approved training under Wis. Stat. § 108.04(16). The commission disagrees.

Wisconsin Stat. § 108.04(16)(a)2 specifically states that a program administered by the department for the training of unemployed workers is approved training. DVR is a division of the Department of Workforce Development, and it provides employment services and training to individuals with disabilities who face a substantial barrier to employment. The Disputed Claims Manual of DWD's Division of Unemployment Insurance, Bureau of Benefits, states that "[a]ny training program administered by the department for the training of unemployed workers is approved training whether or not the conditions of Wis. Stat. § 108.04(16)(a) are satisfied." Examples of training programs administered by the department are cited in the Disputed Claims Manual and specifically include "[v]ocational rehabilitation programs through the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR)." Disputed Claims Manual, Approved Training, Part II: Basic Elements of Approved Training, Section F: Training Approved by TAA, WIA, or a Program Administered by the Department for the Training of Unemployed Workers.

Here, because the employee is receiving training and services through DVR, the employee's schooling is "approved training," regardless of the fact that it grants substantial credit toward a bachelor's or higher degree.

The commission therefore finds that, as of week 12 of 2012, the employee was enrolled in approved training and met the other conditions for extended training benefits, as set forth in Wis. Stat. § 108.06(7).

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is reversed. Accordingly, the employee is eligible for extended training benefits beginning in week 12 of 2012, if otherwise qualified.

Dated and mailed June 20, 2012

BY THE COMMISSION:

/s/ Robert Glaser, Chairperson

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

/s/ Laurie R. McCallum, Commissioner




janasja . urr : 152 : 5

NOTE: The commission did not consult with the administrative law judge regarding witness credibility or demeanor. The commission did not reverse the appeal tribunal based on a differing assessment of witness credibility or demeanor. The commission reversed the appeal tribunal as a matter of law.


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


uploaded 2012/08/06