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


JEFFERY A. SPAULDING, Claimant

TRADE ACT DECISION
Hearing No. 99607371RC


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.

Dated and mailed February 3, 2000
spaulje.tsd : 110 :

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner


MEMORANDUM OPINION

The claimant's appeal states:

"I continue to appeal the discriminatory and totally unreasonable `qualifying requirements for TRA' that will allow a adversely affected employe with only one (1) year of service to be able to be paid TRA benefits and then deny the same benefits to a similarly adversely affected employe with 27 years of service!

I understand that the appeal tribunal is following the letter of the law, but this law is terribly faulted and should be amended so common sense and reason can be applied and I can receive the benefits I worked for for 27 years.

Please hold my case open while I try to communicate this problem to the appropriate officials."

The commission appreciates that the claimant is upset about the denial of his claim, but it cannot agree with his view of the applicable law. While there are qualifying requirements which look to the question of whether a claimant has had employment for wages for a minimum number of weeks before filing their claim, this is not because TRA benefits are something which claimants "earn" by working. The purpose of the qualifying requirements, is to ensure that the limited funds which are available to pay TRA benefits go to persons who are experiencing a loss of income because of a recent separation from employment caused by foreign competition. A person who has not engaged in a significant amount of work in the period before they file their claim, because of illness-related inability to work, is simply not in this situation.

While the fact that the claimant had not worked the minimum number of weeks of qualifying employment was not his fault, and while he may indeed be in a position in which the receipt of benefits would be financially helpful, this does not allow the commission to ignore the law. The Trade Act was not enacted to address, and it cannot address, every type of situation of need which may arise in connection with separations of employment. The claimant's particular predicament, as difficult as it may be for him, is not in the class of situations on which the law was focussed.

There is no point in the claimant's appealing to the commission in order to request that the law be "amended". The commission has no authority to "amend" a law which was passed by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President.

Finally, the commission cannot agree with the claimant's request that it hold his case open. The facts and the law on which the decision must be based, are clear. The commission is obliged, in such a case, to render its decision.


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