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.
 

[LIRC decision]


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 ]