Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

DAVID A. WILSON v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (05/22/87)

decided: May 22, 1987.

DAVID A. WILSON, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in case of In Re: Claim of David A. Wilson, No. B-237245.

COUNSEL

Richard A. Alberti, for petitioner.

Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Craig and Palladino, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino.

Author: Palladino

[ 106 Pa. Commw. Page 307]

David A. Wilson (Petitioner) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying him training benefits under the Trade Act of 1974 (Trade Act), §§ 1-613, 19 U.S.C.A. §§ 2101-2487 (West Supp. 1986)*fn1 We vacate and remand.

Petitioner was laid off from Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation. There is no dispute that he was certified as eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance (taa) pursuant to Section 223 of the Trade Act.*fn2 Petitioner applied for taa training benefits under Section 236 of the Trade Act*fn3 for the purpose of pursuing a Masters Degree in Public Administration at the University of Pittsburgh. The Office of Employment Security (OES) determined that Petitioner was not entitled to taa training benefits because the training he sought benefits for was "professional" rather than "vocational." The referee affirmed the denial, concluding that while a denial of entitlement for trade readjustment benefits under Section 231 of the Trade Act*fn4 is appealable, a decision as to the appropriateness of training benefits under Section 236 is not. The Board concluded that the decision was appealable, but affirmed the denial of benefits, concluding that training benefits are restricted to "vocational" or "on-the-job" training and do not include "professional" training.

[ 106 Pa. Commw. Page 308]

Petitioner, on appeal, contends that the Board's interpretation of the training covered by the Trade Act is in error and that the training he sought was within the scope of the Trade Act.*fn5

Section 236(a) provides, in pertinent part:

(1) If the Secretary determines that --

(A) there is no suitable employment (which may include technical and professional employment) available for a worker,

(B) the worker would benefit from appropriate training,

(C) there is a reasonable expectation of employment following completion of such training,

(D) training approved by the Secretary is available to the worker from either governmental agencies or private sources (which may include area vocational education schools, as defined in Section 195(2) of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.