19. Federal Court Decisions & TRA

UAW v Dole – 19.02

UAW v Dole
Digest no. 19.02

Cite as: UAW v Dole, No. 89-1922 (6th Cir August 21, 1990).

Appeal pending: No
Plaintiffs: International Union U.A.W., et al.
Defendants: Elizabeth H. Dole, Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor
Docket no.: N/A
Date of decision: August 21, 1990

View/download the full decision

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, SIXTH CIRCUIT HOLDING: Application of Michigan’s “waiver for good cause” rule is not inconsistent with the 210 day filing deadline contained in the Trade Act of 1974 related to training benefits.

FACTS: In addition to providing basic “TRA” benefits, the Trade Act of 1974 permits an additional 26 weeks of benefits to assist affected workers complete approved training. Workers must file a bona fide application for training within 210 days after the date of the worker’s separation. Due to internal MESC practices these claimants were not instructed to file until just prior to exhaustion of their state unemployment benefits, which was often beyond the 210 day limit. The MESC sought approval from the U.S. Department of Labor to apply Michigan’s “waiver for good cause” rule (MESC Rule 210). That request was denied.

DECISION: Remanded for further proceedings by the District Court, Secretary of Labor and MESC. Michigan’s waiver for good cause rule may be applied to claimants denied additional weeks of TRA benefits after January 1, 1988 due to operation of the 210 day rule if the MESC’s determination of good cause includes findings of genuine interest in training and the absence of dilatory conduct on the part of the certified worker.

RATIONALE: “Despite the Secretary’s admission that the rule was designed to facilitate workers’ access to additional TRA benefits, she nevertheless argues that because neither the statute nor the parallel regulation provide for any waiver, workers who fail to comply with the 210-day rule are absolutely barred from obtaining additional benefits. Since the Act is silent on the issue of waiver, however, and may, therefore, leave room for more than one interpretation, it should be construed in such a way as to give effect to the general intent of the legislature….

When a cooperating state agency determines that no dilatory conduct has occurred, however, and, instead, concludes that application of the 210-day rule does nothing to further the Act’s remedial purpose and everything to frustrate it, we are hard-pressed to conclude that the Secretary’s interpretation is consistent with Congress’ intent.”

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 12/91

08. Filing for Benefits, Reporting

Coley v GMC, Oldsmobile Division – 8.07

Coley v GMC, Oldsmobile Division
Digest no. 8.07

Section 28(1)(b)

Cite as: Coley v GMC, Oldsmobile Div, unpublished opinion of the Ingham Circuit Court, issued October 12, 1988 (Docket No. 88-61653-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Ruby Coley
Employer: GMC, Oldsmobile Division
Docket nos.: B87-09107-106330W, B87-09106-106331W
Date of decision: October 12, 1988

View/download the full decision

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: Where a claimant sat on her rights for seven months after relying on a family member’s interpretation of an Agency document, she cannot claim she had good cause for her failure to timely report and file.

FACTS: Claimant was fired by employer on December 13, 1982. She applied for and received benefits for some time. Claimant was denied benefits for period February 20, 1983 through October 22, 1983, due to failure to report and failure to file a continued claim without good cause. Claimant’s position was that she stopped reporting after receiving a determination denying her benefits on or about March 8, 1983. Claimant is illiterate. Her daughter read the determination and advised her she no longer needed to report.

DECISION: Claimant is ineligible for benefits under Section 28(1)(a) and (b).

RATIONALE: Under MESC Rule 210(2)(b) – in order to establish “good cause” claimant must show she acted as a reasonable person in light of all the circumstances. Claimant’s decision not to report was the result of an exercise of free will. There is no separate standard for illiterate claimants. Claimant waited seven months before investigating her rights and responsibilities with respect to the determination. That behavior does not comport with the meaning of good cause.

Digest Author: Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 7/99