P O BOX 8126, MADISON, WI 53708-8126


Hearing No. 15607525MW

An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Division of Unemployment Insurance of the Department of Workforce Development issued an appeal tribunal decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed. 

The commission has considered the petition, 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.


The appeal tribunal decision is affirmed. Accordingly, the claimant is ineligible for benefits for weeks 41 and 42 of 2015. The claimant is required to repay the amount of $740 to the unemployment reserve fund.

Dated and mailed March 4, 2016

viliubousd . doc : 132 : CP 350


/s/ Laurie R. McCallum, Chairperson

/s/ C. William Jordahl, Commissioner

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner


The claimant initiated a benefit claim in May 2015. He then began filing weekly claims, including for weeks 41 and 42 of 2015.

To be eligible for benefits in a week, a claimant must conduct a reasonable search for work unless the work search requirement is waived.(1) The search for work must include at least 4 actions per week that constitute a reasonable search for work as prescribed by department rules.(2)

Here, the claimant's work search requirement has not been waived. In weeks 41 and 42 of 2015, the claimant's work search actions consisted of calling four employers on the telephone and asking if they were hiring. On each occasion, the employer told the claimant it was not hiring.

The issue to be decided is whether the claimant conducted a reasonable search for work in weeks 41 and 42 of 2015.

The department's rules provide that any of the following actions constitute a reasonable work search action by the claimant:(3)

The department is required to include in the UCB-10 Handbook for Claimants examples of reasonable work search actions. It has done so by setting forth a nonexclusive list of valid work search actions as follows:(5)

The department also sets forth in the handbook what constitutes invalid work search actions:(6)

Here, the claimant's work search actions were invalid because those actions consisted of "contacting [an] employer to learn that no openings exist/applications are not being taken." The claimant engaged in no other work search actions in the weeks at issue.

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


(1)( Back ) Wis. Stat. § 108.04(2)(a)3. and (b).

(2)( Back ) Wis. Stat. § 108.04(2)(a)3. and (b); Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 127.01(1).

(3)( Back ) Wis. Admin. Code § DWD 127.01(2).

(4)( Back ) Wis. Stat. § 108.04(2)(i).

(5)( Back ) UCB-10 Handbook for Claimants, Part 4.

(6)( Back ) Id. 

uploaded 2016/05/31