Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission --
Summary of Wisconsin
Court Decision relating to Unemployment Insurance
Subject: Ruth Tickler v. LIRC, Case 2005-CV-1788 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Brown Co., April 4, 2006)
Digest Codes: TRA
The claimant’s employer, which was certified as an affected employer under the
Trade Act, made a decision to transfer the claimant’s division to Canada. It
offered employees of that division voluntary early retirement/severance
packages. The claimant accepted one, ending her employment. The employer had not
told the claimant she would be laid off if she did not accept such a package
or not enough other people did. The claimant had sufficient seniority that she
could have kept working for the employer even if there had been layoffs. The
employer ultimately did not end up laying off any workers. LIRC issued a UI decision which allowed the claimant’s UI
benefit claim, reasoning that she quit in lieu of the layoff of another
employee. However, in a separate proceeding (the one leading to this appeal),
LIRC issued a Trade Act decision concluding that the
claimant was not eligible for benefits under the Trade Act, because her
separation from employment had not been “because of lack of work” within the
meaning of the requirement to that effect in the Trade Act. The claimant
appealed, arguing that LIRC’s interpretation was unreasonable and that she should be found eligible based on the fact that she was found eligible for UI benefits.
Held: Affirmed. Under the Trade Act, benefits are payable only to an
“adversely affected worker”, a term defined as a worker who has been separated from
employment “because of lack of work”. 19 U.S.C. §§ 2319, 2291(a). LIRC’s
decision is entitled to great weight deference, so that its decision should be
affirmed if reasonable. LIRC interpreted “because of lack of work” to require an
actual lack of work for the claimant involved. It does not contravene the words
of the statute or go against a clear legislative intent, nor is it otherwise
without rational basis, to consider one who voluntarily accepts a severance
package in lieu of possible layoffs as not separated because of a lack of work.
This is especially true where the claimant’s seniority put her in a position
where she could still be working for the employer. LIRC has consistently
followed this position, which is consistent with the interpretation followed in
a number of other states’ courts. The fact that the claimant was found eligible
for UI benefits is not relevant, because different eligibility standards apply,
and where eligibility for Trade Act benefits is concerned, the Trade Act’s
eligibility requirements trump any inconsistent requirements under state UI
laws.
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 ]