Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission --
Summary of Wisconsin Court Decision relating to Unemployment Insurance


Subject: Jack R. Mayer v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, Case No. 06 CV 518 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Outagamie Co., September 13, 2006)

Digest Codes:  PC 751.3 Jurisdiction, No cause of action; PC 753 Judicial Review, Failure to prosecute/file brief

The employee worked as a union carpenter.  For each hour that he worked his employers paid the required pension assessment into the union pension fund, and when he retired, he began receiving pension payments from this fund.  The employee was taxed for these payments when he received them, not at the time his employers paid the money into the pension fund.  Pursuant to DOL Insurance Program Letter No. 22-87, Change 2 of February 3, 2003, under such circumstances the payments are deemed to be paid to the employee when he actually receives them as payments from the pension fund, not when the employer pays them into the fund.  As a result, such payments offset unemployment benefits received in the same week (Wis. Stat. § 108.05(7)(e)). 

The appeal tribunal was apparently unaware of the federal guideline and found that the payments the employers made to the pension fund were actually the employee’s contributions, and that his pension was therefore totally funded by his contributions.  Thus, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 108.05(7)(f), the appeal tribunal found that the pension payments should not offset the unemployment benefits.  The commission reversed the appeal tribunal but waived the $12,257 overpayment because it was the result of department error.  [LIRC decision]

The employee appealed to circuit court but never submitted a brief or any argument.  In a phone conversation to LIRC he had indicated his concern was the effect LIRC’s decision might have when he claims unemployment benefits in the future. 

Held:  The case is dismissed for two reasons.  First, the employee failed to prosecute his case by filing a brief.  Second, he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, because according to the commission’s decision and arguments made to the court, he had received a windfall of $12,257 due to waiver of the overpayment.  Even if the commission’s findings were judged to be legally incorrect, [1]  the employee had received all the unemployment benefits to which he would be entitled.  Thus, he had suffered no harm and had no cause of action.

 
[1] The judge declined to make any holding on the merits of the case. 

 

 


Please note that this is a summary prepared by staff of the commission, not a verbatim reproduction of the court decision.

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