Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

References: Title I of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1991, as amended by P.L. 102-318;the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970, as amended by P.L. 102-318; GAL 12-92; UIPL 9-92 and Changes; UIPL 45-92; 20 CFR Part 615; ET Handbook 392; ET Handbook 399. Background: Public Law 102-318 amended several sections of the EUC Act of 1991 and the EUCA. No new claims may be filed under the EUC program after March 6, 1993 and the program is scheduled to end on June 19, 1993 (The dates in Section 102(f)(1) and (2) and 106(a)(2), EUC Act of 1991, are expected to be changed by future legislation). However, the suspension of the eligibility and requalification requirements of Section 202(a)(3) and (4) of EUCA that apply to claims for EUC effective with weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6, 1993, requires the determination and payment of EUC differently during the remaining period of the program. The effect of the suspension of these requirements on the eligibility of previously disqualified claimants makes necessary an additional claimant notification of potential eligibility. The modification to Section 101(e) of the EUC Act of 1991, which terminates the Governor's election of an extended benefit (EB) "off" trigger, also provides that individuals eligible under both the EB and EUC programs shall be paid for weeks beginning after March 6, 1993, under the program where the greater entitlement exists (The dates of this provision are expected to change if the EUC program is extended). This requirement necessitates special handling of such claims to determine the appropriate program for payment. All changes to the EUC Act of 1991 and the EUCA as they affect the determination of claims and payment of benefits for weeks beginning after March 6 are addressed in this directive. Controlling Guidance: The provisions of P.L. 102-318, as interpreted in these EUC and EB operating instructions and prior operating instructions (to the extent that they are not inconsistent with these instructions), issued by this Department constitute the controlling guidance provided by the Department of Labor. A. Phaseout of EUC Program. Section 101(c) of Public Law 102- 318 amended Section 102(f)(2) of the EUC Act of 1991 to provide that no payments of benefits will be made under the EUC program for any week beginning after March 6, 1993, except that, benefits will continue to be payable to individuals, for weeks of unemployment beginning between March 6 and June 19, 1993, that have established an EUC account prior to March 6, 1993 (The dates of this provision will change if the EUC program is extended). Therefore, no new EUC claims can be filed after March 6 and only those claimants with an existing EUC claim (or who were eligible to establish an EUC claim), effective prior to March 6, may file an EUC claim for weeks beginning after March 6 and before June 19, 1993. However, under no circumstances will any payments of EUC be made for weeks ending after June 19, 1993. (1) Applicable Benefit Year for EUC. An individual with an existing EUC claim, based on a prior benefit year, will cease to have rights to EUC based on the prior benefit year, when the current benefit year ends. When the current benefit year ends, the prior benefit year upon which the claimant's EUC was based ceases to be the "applicable benefit year" for EUC purposes. Therefore, when such an individual's benefit year ends on or after March 6, 1993, the claimant will have no further rights to EUC as no new EUC claim may be filed after March 6. Hence, if an EB period is "on" in the State, no determination of the greater entitlement under the requirements of Section 101(e)(2) of the EUC Act of 1991, as discussed in paragraph D of this GAL, is appropriate. B. Extended Benefits Trigger. Section 101(d) of P.L. 102-318 amended Section 101(e) of the EUC Act of 1991 to provide that the Governor's election to trigger "off" EB in a State in order to provide for the payment of EUC is not applicable with respect to weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6, 1993. Additionally, this provision prohibits the previous election of an "off" trigger to prevent the beginning of an extended benefit period for weeks beginning after March 6, 1993 (The dates of this provision is expected to change if the EUC program is extended). Therefore, an EB period may trigger "on" in any State effective March 7, 1993, and thereafter, in accordance with State laws consistent with Sections 203(d), (e) and (f) of EUCA without regard to the Governor's previous election of an "off" trigger. C. Alternative Total Unemployment Rate (TUR) EB Trigger. Section 203 of EUCA, was amended by Section 201 of P.L. 102-318 by adding a new subsection (f) which provides an alternative trigger provision that State law may include for purposes of beginning and ending an EB period. Section 201(b) of P.L. 102-318 amended Section 202(b) by adding a new paragraph (3)(A) to require that effective with weeks of unemployment beginning in a "high unemployment period", hereafter referred to as "HUP", an individual's extended compensation account shall be established at the lesser of 80 percent of the total amount of regular compensation or 20 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount or 46 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount reduced, in accordance with State law, by the amount of regular or additional benefits previously paid or deemed paid. Section 201(b) of P.L. 102- 318 further amended Section 202 by adding Subsection (b)(3)(B), EUCA, which defines an HUP, for purposes of Section 202(b)(3)(A), EUCA, as ". . .any period during which an extended benefit period would be in effect if section 202(f)(1)(A)(i) were applied by substituting '8 percent' for '6.5 percent'." Thus, if a State elects the alternative trigger as provided in Section 203(f), EUCA, State law must also conform to Section 202(b)(3)(A) and (B), EUCA. (See UIPL 45-92.) (1) High Unemployment Period. In accordance with State law, for weeks of unemployment beginning in a HUP, the extended compensation account of each individual shall be established at the higher extended benefit (HEB) level of the lesser of 80 percent of the total amount of regular compensation or 20 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount or 46 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount reduced, in accordance with State law, by the amount of regular, additional benefits and extended compensation previously paid or deemed paid. (2) Period for which HEB is payable. HEB may be paid only for weeks beginning during a HUP. When the HUP ends, the extended compensation account of each individual whose account was established during the HUP shall be redetermined and shall be established at the lesser of 50 percent of the total amount of regular compensation or 13 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount or 39 times the individual's average weekly benefit amount reduced, but not below zero, in accordance with State law, by the amount of regular and additional benefits and all extended compensation (EB or HEB) previously paid or deemed paid. D. Payment of the Greater of EB or EUC Entitlement. Section 101(d) of P.L. 102-318 further amended Section 101(e) of the EUC Act to provide that an individual in a State with an EB "on" trigger after March 6, 1993, and who has a EUC account balance shall receive, for weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6, 1993, payments under the program, EUC or EB, in which the individual's entitlement is greater. This provision requires that EUC shall be paid only to an individual whose EUC account balance is greater than the EB entitlement (maximum benefit amount), as of the week for which an EB determination is legally possible for such an individual, whether a claim for EB has been filed or not. When entitlement under both programs are the same, no benefits are payable under the EUC program. Section 101(b) of the EUC Act of 1991 provided that an individual is not eligible for EUC if such individual is eligible for EB and the individual with equal entitlement does not meet the exception provision of Section 101(e) of the EUC Act of 1991. To determine the program under which the claimant is to be paid, the State must examine each individual's specific situation as follows: (1) Claimant Receiving EUC Based on a Prior Benefit Year Under Section 102(b)(2)(B), P.L. 102-318. A claimant that is receiving EUC based on a prior benefit year, having deferred the receipt of regular benefits on a current benefit year, is not an "exhaustee" of the current benefit year for EB purposes and will, therefore, remain eligible for EUC. However, when the current benefit year ends, the claimant will have no further rights to EUC as the prior benefit year will cease to be the applicable benefit year and no new EUC claims may be filed after March 6 based on the most recent benefit year. Therefore, if the benefit year ends during the EB period, the claimant will only have rights to EB based on the most recent benefit year if he/she is otherwise an exhaustee. (2) Claimant Receiving EUC Based on a Prior Benefit Year Under Section 101(f), EUC Act. A claimant that is receiving EUC based on a prior benefit year, having postponed establishing a new benefit year for regular benefits, is not an "exhaustee" for EB purposes as the prior benefit year is not the "applicable benefit year" for EB purposes. Therefore, the individual will remain eligible for EUC. (3) Claimant Receiving EUC Based on a Current Benefit Year. A claimant that is receiving EUC based on a current benefit year, is an "exhaustee" for EB purposes. Therefore, the State must determine the claimant's greater entitlement in accordance with Section 202(b), EUCA, and shall pay weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6, 1993 under the program under which the claimant's remaining benefit entitlement is greater. The "greater" monetary entitlement is the greater of the balance remaining in the claimant's EUC account or the EUC WBA times the number of weeks for which EUC is potentially payable, as appropriate, and the MBA of the potential EB entitlement. If the EB entitlement and the EUC balance are equal, the claimant shall be paid under the EB program. If the claimant's greater entitlement is under the EUC program, and the current benefit year (upon which the EUC claim is based) ends and the claimant has rights to regular benefits, the claimant has an option to continue to receive EUC or file for regular benefits. If the claimant's greater entitlement is under the EB program, and the current benefit year (upon which the EB claim is based) ends and the claimant has rights to regular benefits, the claimant ceases to be an "exhaustee" for EB purposes and has no further rights to EB. E. Suspension of the Suitable Work and Systematic Work Search and Provisions of Sections 202(a)(3) of EUCA. Section 202(b) of P.L. 102-318 suspended the requirements of Sections 202(a)(3) of the EUCA, as amended, and prohibits the application of State laws in conformity with such provision to weeks of unemployment beginning between March 6, 1993 and January 1, 1995. Therefore, for weeks of unemployment during the period of the suspension of such requirements, State law applicable to claims for regular benefits will apply to claims for EB and EUC. To implement the suspension of the requirements of this provision, States must identify each claimant with an existing disqualification under State law in conformity with the provisions of 202(a)(3) and (4), EUCA, and notify each such claimant of the change in eligibility requirements for weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6. During the period of the suspension of the requirements of Sections 202(a)(3) EUCA, the requirements of paragraph (2) of Section 202(a), EUCA, which reads as follows will apply: "Except where inconsistent with the provisions of this title, the terms and conditions of the State law which apply to claims for regular compensation and to the payment thereof shall apply to claims for extended compensation and to the payment thereof." Therefore, under the requirements of Section 202(a)(2), EUCA, States are required to apply the provisions of State law applicable to claims for regular compensation to claims for EUC and EB in lieu of the State law requirements in conformity with Section 202(a)(3), EUCA. Hence, the continuing eligibility requirements pertaining to work search, suitable work, availability for work and ES registration that apply to claimants for regular compensation, apply to claims for EUC for weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6, 1993 and no later than June 19, 1993, and to claimants of EB for weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6, 1993 and before January 1, 1995. (1) Existing EUC Disqualifications. The suspension of the requirements of Section 202(a)(3), EUCA, means that all outstanding EUC disqualifications under State laws in conformity with such provisions do not apply to weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6. Therefore, all claimants disqualified under such State law provisions may have EUC eligibility for weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6. (a) Existing Work Search Disqualification. In the cases of individuals with disqualifications for failure to satisfy the systematic and sustained work search requirement, these denials do not apply to weeks beginning after March 6. The determination that such denial does not apply and that the claimant is eligible under the State law applicable to claims for regular benefits does not constitute a nonmonetary determination. (2) ES Registration and Work Search Requirements. The suspension of the requirements of Sections 203(a)(3), EUCA, eliminates the Job Prospects Classification and ES registration requirements for EUC and EB claimants. Therefore, for weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6, 1993 the work search, ES registration and suitable work requirements for EB and EUC claimants will be in accordance with the State law provisions applicable to claimants for regular benefits. (3) Optional Language for Claimant Notice. Our records indicate that you were denied Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) under provisions of (State) law, that are applicable to the payment of extended benefits as was required by the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 1991. Effective for weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6, 1993, amendments to Federal law require that (State) suspend the application of the State law provisions that apply to claims for extended benefits, and instead, determine eligibility under the same provisions of State law that are applied to claims under the regular State unemployment benefits program. The EUC disqualifications affected by this law change were issued for: -- Failure to conduct a sustained and systematic work search -- Refusal of a suitable job or referral to suitable work while receiving EUC -- Disqualifying separations from employment for voluntary leaving a job or discharges If you are still unemployed, you may be eligible to receive EUC for weeks beginning after March 6, 1993. To allow us to reassess your eligibility for EUC benefits, report to the office where you filed your claim. Note: In cases involving disqualifying separations from employment and refusals of suitable work or referrals to suitable work, the application of the State law provisions for regular State unemployment benefits may be more severe than the State law for extended benefits. F. Suspension of the Subsequent Work Requalification Requirement of Section 202(a)(4), EUCA. Section 202(b) of P.L. 102-318 suspended the requirements of Section 202(a) (4) of the EUCA, as amended, and prohibits the application of State laws in conformity with such provisions to weeks of unemployment beginning between March 6, 1993 and January 1, 1995. Therefore, for weeks of unemployment during the period of the suspension of such requirements, the requalification requirements of State law applicable to claims for regular benefits will apply to claims for EB and EUC. To implement the suspension of the requirements of this provision, States must identify claimants with existing disqualifications under State laws in conformity with such provisions, notify the claimants of the change in eligibility requirements for weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6. If a claimant previously disqualified under provisions in conformity with Section 202(a)(4), EUCA, requirements initiates a claim for benefits for a week beginning after March 6, the State must review the facts of the disqualifying issue under the State law applicable to claims for regular benefits (and EB or EUC for weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6). If no claim is filed after March 6, no review is necessary or appropriate. If the review results in a disqualification under State law provisions applicable to claims for regular benefits, such determination is a countable nonmonetary determination. (1) EUC Disqualifications Based on Prior Termination of Regular Benefit Disqualifications Without a Subsequent Work Requirement. If State law applicable to claims for regular benefits terminates a disqualification for voluntarily leaving employment, being discharged for misconduct, or refusing suitable employment without a requirement for employment/earnings subsequent to the date of the disqualifying act or determination, such State law applies to claims for EB and EUC for weeks of unemployment beginning after March 6, 1993 and before January 1, 1995. Therefore, if an EUC claimant has been denied benefits due to a prior regular benefit disqualification, the eligibility of such claimant must be redetermined for weeks beginning after March 6. If the claimant has satisfied the State law requirements for requalification, the claimant will be eligible for EUC for weeks beginning after March 6, if all other eligibility requirements are met. The determination that a claimant has satisfied the applicable requalifying requirements and is eligible for EUC or EB, whichever is greater, does not constitute a nonmonetary determination. If the review results in a disqualification under State law applicable to claims for regular benefits, the determination is a countable nonmonetary determination. (2) EUC Disqualifications for a Separation or Job Refusal that Occurred During the EUC Claim. In cases where a review of the facts of the issue under the applicable State law results in a lesser requalification requirement, the State must determine if the requirement has already been satisfied. When the lesser requalification requirement has already been satisfied, the removal of the disqualification does not constitute a nonmonetary determination. When the lesser requalification has not been satisfied, a redetermination under the appropriate State law will be issued and does constitute a nonmonetary determination. In cases where the review of the facts under State law applicable to the issue results in a greater requalification requirement, a redetermination will be issued under the appropriate State law and does constitute a nonmonetary determination. (3) Existing EUC Disqualifications Satisfied Prior to a Claim for a Week Beginning After March 6. Without regard to the date of the determination that the requalification requirements of a prior disqualification has been met, in cases where there is an existing disqualification and the claimant has met the requalification requirements prior to claiming a week of unemployment beginning after March 6, no readjudication of the issue under State law applicable to regular claims will occur. The claimant will be eligible for EUC or EB, whichever is greater, if all other eligibility requirements are met. G. Modification to the EB Base Period Earnings Test Requirement. In determining whether or not a claimant's benefits are "greater" under the EUC or EB program, States are reminded that Section 202(a)(5) of EUCA which was amended by P.L. 102- 318 to provide that, effective for weeks of unemployment beginning after July 3, 1992, a State may use one or more of the base period earnings test specified, i.e. 20 weeks of work, one and one-half times the high quarter wages or forty time the claimant's weekly benefit amount, to establish that the claimant had sufficient base period employment/earning to meet the eligibility requirement was implemented immediately upon enactment for claims under the EUC program. Therefore, if the State elected to use more than one test for EUC but has not amended its law with respect to EB, there are eligible EUC claimants that will be ineligible for EB. Section 202(a)(5) of EUCA requires State law to specify the earnings test(s) applicable to claims for EB. NOTE: It determining whether or not a claimant has sufficient base period employment and wages, base period employment and earnings under other States laws, whether or not used in the determination of regular benefit rights, are base period earnings for purposes of Section 202(a)(5), EUCA, and must be considered. However, States must not used the Request for Transfer of Wages, Form IB-4 (or the TC-IB4) to verify the base period wages. Administrative Funding: State agencies will receive additional administrative funds to notify and reassess the eligibility of individuals whose prior disqualifications are affected by the suspension of the requirements of Sections 202(a)(3) and (4), EUCA. Staffyears earned for reaccessing the eligibility of those claimants that reopen EUC claims as a result of the notice and no nonmonetary determination results from the reassessment will be computed by using an MPU value of no more than 20 minutes. States have the option to use a lesser value MPU if they deem it appropriate. This information should be included on line 5 of the regular UI-3 worksheet, Section B. States should show the calculation at the bottom of the additional costs worksheet. Staffyears used for this activity should be included on line 1, Section A. Staffyears will not be separately reported for the identification and notification process. If a reportable nonmonetary determination under State law applicable to regular claims results from the reassessment, no additional staffyear earnings are to be reported on the UI-3. Reporting Requirements: There are no special reporting requirements concerning claims affected by the law changes. Action Required: State Administrators are requested to make a copy of this letter available to all appropriate staff.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Background: The Department of Labor actively supports programs that encourage older workers' continued participation in the workforce. As a symbol of this support, Secretary Reich has signed a proclamation declaring the week of March 13 through March 19, 1994 to be "National Employ the Older Worker Week". Actions Required: State Job Training Liaisons and Employment Security Agencies are encouraged to: a. distribute the attached proclamation to their local offices and service delivery areas in time so that it is received prior to March 13; b. promote efforts to educate employers on the benefits of hiring and retaining older workers; c. undertake efforts to recognize the contributions made by older workers and to facilitate and promote their continued participation in the workforce; and d. coordinate jointly with Senior Community Service Employment Program sponsors to further foster community efforts to recognize, promote and celebrate older worker efforts in their local communities.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

References. 20 CFR 632.4 and DINAP Bulletin 93-08. Background. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) published revised poverty income guidelines in the Federal Register on February 10, 1994. The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) regulations at 20 CFR 632.4 provide for the use of DHHS poverty guidelines in determining economically disadvantaged persons and program eligibility. However, DHHS has definitions of "income" and "family" which are not applicable to the JTPA program. JTPA definitions can be found at 20 CFR 632.4. Action. The revised guidelines are effective from the date of this bulletin. Questions. Contact your DINAP Federal Representative.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

Click on the link below to view, save, or print out the document.

References: None Background: In May of 1993, the Center for Human Resources (CHR) at Brandeis University, under a contract with the Employment and Training Administration (ETA), provided training to States and service delivery areas (SDAs) to improve the quality of their summer programs. This year ETA has obtained assistance from KRA Corporation as well as CHR at Brandeis University to provide training on work-based and classroom-based strategies for summer enrichment that were field tested last summer. Training: Summer Enrichment Training will be provided to the JTPA community to assist SDA's to enrich their summer youth programs with activities that will maintain and increase young people's basic education skill levels, add new job skills to young peoples' repertoires, integrate work and learning, and expose young people to new work experiences that foster job interests. Lessons learned during the summer of 1993 will be incorporated into the training. This training is designed to focus directly on youth program practitioners, rather than as train-the-trainer sessins. The training team will consist of representatives from KRA Corporation and Brandeis University, as well as representatives from SDA's that operated work-based and classroom-based strategies for summer enrichment last year. The training sessions will be conducted for three full days. The schedule and geographical location for each training site are as follows: Regions Covered Location Date I, II, III, IV Washington, DC March 28-31, 1994 VIII, IX, X San Francisco, CA April 12-14, 1994 V, VI, VII Chicago, IL April 26-28, 1994 The Washington, D.C., meeting will begin at noon on Monday, March 28 and end at noon on Thursday, March 31. All other sessions will begin at 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday and end at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday. Participants: Attached is a listing of State and SDA training slot allocations. The slot distribution was based on the number of SDA's in each State. Due to the limited number of slots, we encourage that State staff be limited to one per State to allow for a larger SDA participation level. Since there are fewer slots available than there are SDA's, we ask that States identify those SDA representatives that they feel could benefit most from this type of academic enrichment training. If the number of slots allotted is insufficient to meet the needs of your SDA's, please indicate on the appropriate space on the registration form. If additional slots become available, KRA will contact you directly. Additional slots will be granted on a first- come, first-serve basis, with priority being given to larger States. In addition to participants from States and SDA's, representatives from the Regional Offices will also attend. Logistics: Training sessions are being provided to the attendees free of charge. However, represented agencies and organizations must bear the cost of travel, lodging, and per diem. See the attached registration form for information on hotel accommodations. Participants should make their hotel reservations directly with the hotel. They should identify themselves as being with the KRA/Department of Labor meeting. Action Required: JTPA State Liaisons are to submit the attached registration form to KRA by the date indicated.