Skrundz v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec.
| Citation | 444 N.E.2d 1217 |
| Decision Date | 08 February 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-781A241,2-781A241 |
| Parties | John B. SKRUNDZ, et al., Claimants-Appellants, v. REVIEW BOARD OF the INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY and Inland Steel Company, Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Bernard M. Mamet & Associates, Ltd., Chicago, Ill., M. Bosch, Stodola & Bosch, Hammond, for claimants-appellants.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Gordon R. Medlicott, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for respondents-appellees.
This is an appeal by claimants-appellants John B. Skrundz, et al. 1 (Claimants), representing 71 present and former bricklayer employees of respondent-appellee Inland Steel Company, Indiana Harbor Works, East Chicago, Indiana, (Inland) whose claims for trade readjustment allowance benefits (TRA) under the Federal Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. Sec. 2271 et seq. (Act), were denied by the respondent-appellee Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (Agency or Review Board). The Agency is a cooperating state agency which administers this federal program in the State of Indiana on behalf of the Secretary of the United States Department of Labor (Secretary) and pursuant to the regulations issued by the Secretary set forth under 29 C.F.R. Secs. 90-91.
We reverse and remand.
On December 7, 1976, Inland employees, members of the United Steelworkers of America, filed a petition with the Secretary, seeking certification coverage for TRA benefits. On October 17, 1977, the Secretary approved the petition and issued certification TA-W-1602 which provided that:
"All workers engaged in employment related to the production of carbon steel plate and structural shapes at the Indiana Harbor Works of the Inland Steel Company in East Chicago, Indiana who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 7, 1975 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2 of the Trade Act of 1974."
The certification period for "adversely affected workers" 2 was October 17, 1977 The Agency's position as to the Claimant bricklayers is as follows: 1) Some Claimants were separated from employment during the certification period, but failed to file an initial claim for TRA benefits until after certification had expired. Furthermore, these Claimants filed their applications after the Agency had issued the following directive on April 20, 1981:
through October 17, 1979. The Claimants all filed their written applications for TRA benefits after expiration of the certification period, most having filed their claims during May and June, 1981, for partial or total separations from employment which occurred during the certification period. Many of these same Claimants testified before the Agency's appeals referee that they had tried to apply for TRA benefits shortly after being laid off, but were either dissuaded from applying or told by Agency representatives that they were ineligible for the benefits because they were maintenance workers rather than workers engaged in employment related to the production of steel who qualified under certification.
Some Local Offices have reported that as different certifications expire or near expiration, claimants are attempting to establish or extend TRA claims based on possible separations that occurred as much as two years in the past.
Weeks occurring before the certification date will not be denied because of the claimant's failure to report during such weeks. However, for weeks occurring after a group of workers has been certified, reporting requirements will be enforced on TRA just as they are on UI. A determination will be issued when benefits are denied for failure to meet reporting requirements.
If the claimant is now attempting to establish an initial TRA claim when he could have done so earlier, the claim will be taken with a current effective date. The Benefit Determinations Section will deny the claim for lack of a current separation or because the certification has expired, whichever is appropriate."
2) Other Claimants were denied TRA benefits because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the claimants were separated from employment related to the production of carbon steel plate and structural shapes at Inland. The Agency concluded that the Claimants were maintenance workers, and therefore, were not separated from adversely affected employment 3 as defined under the certification petition, No. TA-W-1602.
3) A few Claimants were denied TRA benefits because they failed to present any written documentation tending to prove that they had met the wage and employment requirements 4 set forth under the And finally, 4) some Claimants were denied benefits by the Agency's Review Board which had reversed the appeals referee's finding that the Claimants were included within the certification petition and were engaged in employment related to the production of carbon steel plate and structural shapes at Inland. Having reversed the deputy, the referee also concluded that this last group of Claimants had not applied for TRA benefits soon after their separations because they were dissuaded from filing applications by representatives of the Agency. Therefore, the Claimants did not fail without good cause to apply timely to the Agency for TRA benefits. The Review Board, however, reversed the referee and reinstated the deputy's determination that the claimants were maintenance workers, and thus not adversely affected workers coming under the protection of certification TA-W-1602. Furthermore, the Review Board stated the evidence shows that the Agency office would only discourage laid-off Claimant bricklayers from applying since it felt they were not eligible, but there is no evidence to conclude the Agency actually disallowed Claimant bricklayers to file applications for TRA benefits.
federal regulations for their qualifying periods of separation.
On appeal from the Review Board's decision, this court consolidated the above-described Claimants (named in footnote 1) since the various appeals essentially raised the same questions.
The Claimants present three arguments on appeal which we restate as follows:
I. The Review Board erred in finding that the Agency had not failed to comply with the Act and attendant regulations in discouraging Claimants from filing applications for TRA benefits and by placing time limits on filing such claims in its Agency directive of April 20, 1981;
II. The Review Board erred in finding that the Claimants were not qualified to receive TRA benefits because they were maintenance workers and were not separated from employment related to the production of carbon steel plate and structural shapes; and
III. The Agency failed to comply with the Act and federal regulations which require it to take affirmative steps to obtain pertinent information of a Claimant before denying a TRA claim.
As we reverse, only Issues I and II will be discussed. When reviewing an administrative decision, judicial review shall be limited to a determination of whether the agency possessed jurisdiction over the matter and whether its order was made in accordance with the proper legal procedure, was based upon substantial evidence, and did not violate any constitutional statutory or legal principles. City of Indianapolis v. Tabak, (1983) Ind.App., 441 N.E.2d 494. In dealing with an appeal from the Review Board, the Court of Appeals does not reweigh the evidence, and findings of the Board are conclusive unless reasonable men, considering only evidence supporting those findings, would be bound to reach a different conclusion. Marozsan v. Review Board, (1982) Ind.App., 429 N.E.2d 986; Jean v. Review Board, (1981) Ind.App., 429 N.E.2d 4.
Issue I. Agency action
The Claimants' first argument is as follows:
"The Agency's action in discouraging and/or refusing to accept TRA claims, whether intentional or not, (during the instant certification period) and its April 20, 1981 Directive which placed a time limitation on the filing of TRA claims is outside the authority of the Agency and, indeed, conflicts directly with the federal TRA law."
Claimants rely on several subsections of the Act and its companion regulations to support their argument that the Agency has an affirmative duty in administering the TRA benefit program to assist them in filing applications.
Before examining specific sections, we first note that the purpose of the Act is to provide economic benefits to workers separated from employment certified by the Secretary to be adversely affected by foreign competition. 5
Under 19 U.S.C. Sec. 2311(a), the TRA benefit program is administered by the Indiana Employment Security Division in accordance with the Act and regulations. An Agency determination with respect to a claimant's entitlement to TRA benefits is subject to review in the same manner as unemployment insurance claims. Id.
Returning to Claimants' first argument, they cite two federal regulations as authority for the proposition that the Agency is not complying with the federal TRA program: 29 C.F.R. Sec. 90.22 and Sec. 91.6.
Section 90.22 is captioned "Dissemination of program knowledge and assistance to workers." It provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bouchard v. State Emps. Ret. Comm'n
... ... earned in the retiree's final year of state employment for the purpose of calculating the retiree's base salary ... only basis and the commission's multitiered review procedures. In the interim, the Superior Court issued a ... Cf. Skrundz v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division ... ...
-
Hurley v. Board of Review of the Indus. Com'n of Utah, Dept. of Employment Sec., s. 20828
... ... That was the law before Congress amended the Act in 1981 and remained the law after the amendment. 6 Skrundz v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec., 444 N.E.2d 1217 (Ind.Ct.App.1983); Claim of Walter, 103 A.D.2d 265, 479 N.Y.S.2d 918 (1984) ... ...
-
State Bd. of Tax Com'rs v. Smith
... ... No. 4-1182A348 ... Court of Appeals of Indiana, ... Fourth District ... May 15, 1984 ... Upon review of the county abstract of assessments submitted on June 21, ... Skrundz v. Review Board of the Ind. Empl. Security Division, ... ...
-
Glover v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review
... ... His separation from employment was covered by the Trade Act, which established a federal program that ... See Skrundz v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec., 444 N.E.2d 1217, 1225 ... ...