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


DOUGLAS O. RENFRO, Claimant

TRADE ACT DECISION
Hearing No. 99607497MW


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 claimant worked over 22 years as a laborer for a brewing firm, until he was laid off due to lack of work on October 24, 1997.

After he was laid off, the claimant initiated a claim for benefits under Wisconsin's unemployment insurance program with the Department of Workforce Development ("department"). He drew a total of 26 weeks of regular unemployment insurance benefits, which ended when his regular benefit entitlement was exhausted in May of 1998.

Early in 1998, the claimant had also filed an application for weekly trade readjustment allowances (TRA) under the Trade Act of 1974, 19 USC § 2101 et seq., a federal law intended to ameliorate the effects on workers from foreign competition which adversely affects businesses here in the U.S. These benefits would, if granted, have been paid beginning when the claimant's regular unemployment insurance benefit entitlement was exhausted. However, a determination was made by the department (which also administers the Trade Act program in Wisconsin) that claimant was not entitled to TRA benefits because of the circumstances under which his employment with the brewing firm ended.

The claimant appealed this determination. However, because he was no longer receiving unemployment insurance benefits and was not receiving TRA benefits and needed income to live on, he searched for employment and eventually accepted a job with Reno Air in Nevada, where he began working in June, 1998. He worked for Reno Air, as a reservationist, on a full-time basis until January, 1999, when he went to a part-time schedule.

While claimant was working for Reno Air, the denial of his claim for TRA benefits was on appeal. In January, 1999, the commission issued decisions which reversed the denial of his claim for TRA benefits. He received a check at that time in the amount of the TRA benefits he was entitled to and should have received from June, 1998 to January, 1999.

In January through July of 1999, claimant continued to be employed on a part- time basis with Reno Air. During that period, he also received extended unemployment benefits from Wisconsin. He received partial benefit payments because his wages from Reno Air were less than the amount of his full benefit entitlement.

In July, 1999, claimant's schedule at Reno Air was increased to full-time again. Claimant was attending school at this time, and he would have been unable to continue in his school program if he worked the full-time schedule Reno Air had for him. For this reason, claimant quit his job at Reno Air at this point.

Also as of July, 1999, claimant's entitlement to extended benefits from Wisconsin was exhausted. At that time he sought to start receiving TRA benefits from Wisconsin. However, at that time, the work he had performed for Reno Air in Nevada gave him credits which made him eligible for unemployment compensation benefits from Nevada. Because he had an unexhausted entitlement to state unemployment compensation benefits from Nevada, his request for TRA benefits was denied. This denial was pursuant to Section 231(a) of the Trade Act, which provides that payment of trade readjustment allowances may be made to a person only if, among other conditions, the person "has exhausted all rights to any unemployment insurance to which he was entitled (or would be entitled if he applied therefor)". 19 U. S. C. § 2291(a)(3)(B).

The claimant does not dispute that the applicable statutory language makes him ineligible for TRA benefits so long as he has an unexhausted entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits. However, he argues that if it had not been for the earlier denial of TRA benefits (eventually reversed by the commission), which forced him to have to take employment with Reno Air beginning in January of 1999, he would not have acquired the employment credits in Nevada which now cause him to have that unexhausted entitlement to unemployment insurance there. He argues that even though such a situation is not addressed by the applicable statutory language, a humane and compassionate approach would resolve the matter.

The commission is unable to agree with the claimant's position. Regardless of the historical circumstances which led the claimant to take a particular job, at a particular time, at a particular place, the fact remains that as of the point at which he was recently seeking TRA benefits, he had an unexhausted entitlement to state unemployment insurance benefits. The commission is obliged to apply the letter of the Trade Act with respect to eligibility questions such as this, and it is absolutely clear from the statutory language that the claimant cannot be eligible for TRA benefits in these circumstances. There is simply no way that a determination of eligibility for TRA benefits could be made in the face of claimant's concurrent eligibility for state unemployment insurance benefits, that would not be directly contrary to federal law.

The commission understands, that this outcome may be disadvantageous to the claimant because of his particular circumstances. However, the outcome is not only one that is clearly required by the applicable statutes, but is also one which is consistent with the overall purposes of the Trade Act.

Unlike the unemployment insurance system, which is supported by a direct tax on or direct reimbursement from employers, and is therefore essentially a "sum-sufficient" system, the Trade Act is funded by fixed federal appropriations. For this reason, the sums available for benefits under the Trade Act are limited. They must be used where they are most needed and where they will be most effective.

There may of course be cases, such as this one, in which an unexhausted entitlement to state unemployment insurance benefits is less attractive to a claimant than the benefits which would be available under the Trade Act, because of differing benefit amounts or differences in the availability of support for retraining programs. However, congress had to balance the possibility that such a situation could arise, against the needs of displaced workers who had no entitlement to any sort of income support at all. To focus the available funds where they would be most useful, some priorities and some limits had to be established. The limit involved in this case - that Trade Act benefits cannot be provided to workers who have an unexhausted entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits - is such a limit.

The commission therefore finds that the claimant is not eligible for Trade Readjustment Allowances beginning with week 35 of 1999 because he had an unexhausted benefit claim with Nevada within the meaning of Section 231(a) of the Trade Act, 19 U. S. C. § 2291(a)(3)(B).

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. Accordingly, no Trade Readjustment Allowances are payable beginning with week 35 of 1999 and until the claimant has exhausted all of his unemployment benefit entitlement.

Dated and mailed January 7, 2000
renfrdo.trr : 110 : TRA

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner


NOTE: The commission had no disagreement with the material findings and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge. It has issued this separate affirmance decision only in order to more fully set forth the reasons for its agreement with the result arrived at by the Administrative Law Judge.


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