References: Section 314(f), JTPA, as amended by Section 301 of P.L. 102-367 (The Job Training Reform Amendments of 1992), and Section 3304(a)(8), FUTA. Background: Section 3304(a)(8), FUTA, requires, as a condition for employers in a State to receive normal credit against the Federal tax, that a State's unemployment compensation (UC) law provide that: compensation shall not be denied to an individual for any week because he is in training with the approval of the State agency (or because of the application, to any such week in training, of State law provisions relating to availability for work, active search for work, or refusal to accept work). . . Title III, JTPA, contains certain employment and training provisions specifically related to dislocated workers. In its original enactment (Public Law (P.L.) 97-300), JTPA included a provision which the Department of Labor (Department) interpret- ed as requiring that acceptance of training under Title III, JTPA, was to be considered approved training under Section 3304(a)(8), FUTA. The reauthorization of JTPA (P.L. 99-496) did not include a similar provision; however, Department regulations at 20 CFR 631.4 (1992) imposed such a requirement. The recently enacted P.L. 102-367, the Job Training Reform Amendments of 1992, again included such a provision related to approved training. Specifically, Section 301(2) of P.L. 102-367 added new Section 314(f)(2) to JTPA. This section provides: An eligible dislocated worker participating in training (except for on-the-job training) under this title [i.e., Title III] shall be deemed to be in training with the approval of the State agency for purposes of section 3304(a)(8) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [i.e., Section 3304(a)(8), FUTA]. This provision is implemented in regulations at 20 CFR 631.4 (57 Fed. Reg. 62004, 62063). Discussion: Section 3304(a)(8), FUTA, requires a State to allow an individual in an approved training course to receive UC and to prohibit denial based on State law provisions relating to availability for work, active search for work, or refusal of work. Ordinarily, each State is free to determine whether training is appropriate for a claimant, to establish the criteria for approval of a training course, and to adopt safeguards to assure that the claimant is actually attending approved training. Section 314(f)(2), JTPA, however, preempts State agency discretion to approve training in one area. A State must consider training under Title III of JTPA to be "approved" training within the meaning of Section 3304(a)(8), FUTA. This amendment to JTPA applies only to those individuals actually participating in training under Title III, JTPA. It does not apply to individuals who are merely enrolled, accepted in, or planning to attend such training. Nor, by its terms, does it apply to on- the-job training. States do, however, have the option of considering whether individuals participating in training under other titles of JTPA are in "approved" training. Section 3304(a)(8), FUTA, prohibits the denial of compensation to a trainee in an approved training course based on State law requirements relating to availability for work, active search for work, or refusal of work. However, an individual participating in training under Title III, JTPA, who does not meet other State UC eligibility requirements is not entitled to UC. For example, Title III, JTPA, permits individuals who have exhausted their compensation to participate in training programs. These individuals remain ineligible for UC because of State law regarding exhaustion of compensation, despite participation in training under Title III, JTPA. Individuals must satisfy all other basic State law requirements for eligibility, such as establishing sufficient qualifying wages or showing good cause for voluntarily leaving employment. These requirements are not waived by any provision of JTPA or FUTA. Effective Date: Under Section 701(a) of P.L. 102-367, the amendments made by such act "shall take effect on July 1, 1993" except as otherwise provided. Since no other provision designates an effective date for Section 314(f), it is effective July 1, 1993. Action Required: States should review their laws to assure that individuals participating in training (except for on-the-job training) under Title III, JTPA, are in "approved" training under State laws.

References: ET Handbook 392; Internet User Guide; Interstate Benefit Payment Plan. Background: For the past four years, we have worked towards automation of the Interstate Handbooks. In FY 1989 the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies' Interstate Benefit (IB) Committee supported the automation of the Handbook as a result of the request of participants at the National Interstate Conference held in September 1988. On September 16, 1991, the Martin Marietta Information Systems Group (MMISG) HUB distributed the original automated handbook installation instructions, programs and User Guides nationwide to the Internet Programmers for all IBM States. It was estimated that approximately four man hours would be necessary to install the programs. MMISG also distributed information, documentation to the Internet Programmer for all non- IBM States at the same time. The programs and User Guide have also been distributed to non-IBM States upon request. On November 16, 1992, revised Handbook software was distributed to the Internet Programmers for all IBM States, and information and documentation were distributed to all non-IBM States. A notice of the distribution was sent via a TC-IB13 to each States' Interstate Program/Internet Coordinator(s). A copy of the distribution cover memo was sent to all ETA Regional Office UI Directors. However, to date, only 17 States are operational on the automated Handbook. At its last meeting, the IB Committee established a deadline, of October 1, 1993, for all IBM States and February 1, 1994, for non- IBM States, for nationwide implementation of the automated Handbook and the Local Office Directory. Updates to the Handbook and Directory: Effective October 1, 1993, for IBM States and February 1, 1994, for non-IBM States, States will update sections of the Interstate Claimstaking Handbook and Local Office Directory by initiating the "HDUP' transaction. After the above dates, the National Office will no longer accept hard copy updates for data entry to the system. The online update transaction provides the SESA with the ability to type over existing text and repeat, insert and delete a line of text. The Code allows the SESA to write updates to the "Handbook in Progress" file for later transmission and delete drafts from the "Handbook in Progress" file before telecommunicating to the National Office. After an updated section has been telecommunicated to the National Office, that section of the Handbook is protected against further update until the SESA's official copy "Automated Handbook" file has been updated from the incoming IB-13(s) from the National Office. MMISG will periodically transmit automated Handbook updates to the States for reloading. The National Office will continue to provide hard copy updates to the ETA Regional Offices. Until the implementation dates take effect, SESA must continue to provide updates to the Handbook and Directory in accordance with the instructions provided in ET Handbook 392, Appendix A. Action Required: State Administrators are requested to provide a copy of this letter to the appropriate program and data processing staff and ensure that the Automated Handbook software is installed and operational by October 1, 1993, or February 1, 1994, as appropriate.

Background: Many organizations in the employment and training community have expressed a desire to have electronic access to one another. Several have established independent electronic solutions for accessing information data sources. In order to meet the growing communications and information needs of the employment and training community - national, Regional, State, and local - ETA has, with additional impetus from the 1992 Amendments to the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), decided to develop a "corporate strategy" to communications and networking. An ETA-wide task force has been formed for this purpose and has come together to develop a collective approach to electronic communications. Objectives: The objectives that will guide development of ETA's networking strategy are threefold: -- to provide a facility for electronic communications between ETA and its grantee universe; -- to provide a facility for electronic communications among and between ETA grantees; and, -- to seamlessly interconnect ETA's three principal operating environments (the ETA LAN and its components, the Unemployment Insurance Service Artecon/Sun system, and the Office of Job Corps communications/data system). This effort will serve to bring all of ETA's existing and planned communications systems and initiatives under one umbrella. Design and Implementation Strategy: Several steps have already been taken towards establishing a network strategy. a. Task Force. The Data Communications Network project is guided by a task force under the direction of David Morman, Deputy Director of the Office of Information Resources Management. Its members represent the ETA National and Regional Offices, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management, and the Office of the Inspector General. The task force, with the assistance of a technical consultant, has begun to review the configuration of existing hardware/software/communications systems within the employment and training community. This may entail some detailed data collection about these configurations. The task force has also begun to design and evaluate some architectural options for a wide area data network. b. National Conference. To facilitate input/feedback from the employment and training community regarding its functional requirements and the overall network design, ETA has and will continue to host a series of meetings/conferences with the user and grantee community. A conference is scheduled for August 26 and 27 at the Stouffer Hotel at the Inner Harbor in Baltimore, Maryland. This conference is intended to bring together all users within the ETA community to discuss the communications needs and expectations of each user group and to review the work to date on the network design. ETA has informally contacted the States to identify attendees representative of the employment and training community to attend this conference. Attached is a list of names submitted to the National Office to date, as well as detailed conference information. c. Network Pilot. The next phase in our communications strategy, anticipated to begin in October 1993, will be to test a selected architectural approach, through the establishment of a pilot network. This will allow us to fine tune the overall design, and will provide a more indepth understanding of potential usage of the fully implemented network. One of the ten ETA Regions will be identified as a pilot site to test network options; grantees in the selected Region will participate on a voluntary basis. From the pilot of the network we hope to learn: (1) what technical approaches work best, (2) the amount of traffic required by network, (3) how much it will cost to implement and maintain, and (4) how complex it may be to operate/manage the network. This phase will last 6 months. Upon completion of the pilot, the knowledge gained will be used to establish a strategy for developing a nationwide employment and training wide area network. Technical Workgroup: As an adjunct to the task force, a larger workgroup of users within the ETA grantee community is being formed. Members of this workgroup will provide their individual views and concerns as we proceed. Action Required: Recipients of this UIPL are requested to: a. Please widely share information in this UIPL with your State UI system; b. Determine if additional representatives from your State should attend the system-wide conference in August or join the large networking workgroup. If so, please submit the names, addresses, and affiliations of the additional attendees to the National Office by FAX to either Roxanne Rozek (FAX: (202) 219-6510) or Diane Mayronne (FAX: (202) 219-7190).

References. UIPL 46-94 (September 30, 1994) Background. Since Fall 1993, the UI Service has been addressing the question of improved UI operational performance and how its conduct of the Secretary of Labor's legally-mandated oversight of the UI system is related to the UI system's performance. Its partner in this task has been a committee of senior SESA managers appointed by the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies (ICESA). A joint workgroup comprising the State representatives and Federal National and Regional office staff was formed to conduct this review. As of June 1995, it has met thirteen times. The workgroup set three goals related to its overall concern of providing better services to UI claimants and employers. These are (1) to develop the broad framework for SESA-DOL working relationships and the roles for the partners; (2) to develop a system through which the UI system can more readily enhance performance; and (3) to apply the framework and performance enhancement principles in reconsidering the nature and focus of the Benefits QC program. In September 1994, three of the committee's draft products were circulated for comment via UIPL 46-94. These were the "Partnership Principles" outlining how the Federal and State parties should work together to the mutual benefit of the UI system's ultimate customers; five papers illustrating how those principles would translate into complementary Federal and State roles in different areas; and an outline of a closed-loop management system for continuously enhancing operational performance. These materials represented the culmination of the work on the first goal and a basic outline of the approach taken toward achieving the second. The committee has since completed the proposed system designed to achieve its second goal. The paper describing the proposed system and how it is intended to work is attached. Entitled "UI Performs: How the Unemployment Insurance System Will Improve Its Performance," it contains as appendices the final versions of both the partnership principles and the role papers. Both appendices reflect comments received in Fall 1994. The workgroup is now in the midst of reconsidering the Benefits QC program, its final task. It intends to agree on a proposed redesign in the Fall of 1995. The Department will solicit comment on the proposed version as soon as possible after the workgroup has made its recommendation. Action Required. SESA administrators are requested to (a) share the attached paper with appropriate staff and (b) offer comments on it. Comments are requested by September 30, 1995, or earlier if possible so that the committee may consider them at its meeting on September 20. ..ST: Paper, "UI Performs: How the Unemployment Insurance System Will Improve Its Performance" (August 1995). To obtain a copy of attachment(s), please contact Deloris Norris of the Office of Regional Management at (202) 219-5585.

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.

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: Section 3304(a)(6)(A) of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), UIPL No. 18-78, dated March 6, 1978; UIPL No. 4-83, dated November 15, 1982; UIPL No. 41-83, dated September 13, 1983; UIPL No. 30-85, dated July 12, 1985, (50 FR 48274, 48280); UIPL No. 11-86, dated January 31, 1986; UIPL No. No. 15-92, dated January 27, 1992, (57 FR 7795, 7796); the Draft Language and Commentary to Implement the Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1976-P.L. 94-566 ("1976 Draft Language"); and Supplements 1 through 5 to the 1976 Draft Language. Background: Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA, requires each State to pay unemployment compensation (UC) based on services performed for certain governmental entities and nonprofit organizations. UC is to be paid based on these services "on the same terms, and subject to the same conditions as compensation payable on the basis of other service" covered by the State law. This is commonly referred to as the "equal treatment" requirement. Exceptions to the equal treatment requirement are found in six distinct clauses of Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA. These provisions are commonly referred to as the "between and within terms denial" provisions. Some of the between and within terms denial provisions are required as a condition of certification of State law by the Secretary of Labor. Others are optional. The following describes which provisions are required and which are optional: Required: Denial between and within terms based on services performed in an instructional, research or principal administrative (i.e., a "professional") capacity for either an educational institution or an educational service agency (ESA). (Clauses (i), (iii) and (iv) of Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA.) Optional: (1) Denial between and within terms based on services performed in other than an instructional, research or principal administrative (i.e., a "non- professional") capacity for either an educational institution or an ESA. (Clause (ii); clauses (iii) and (iv) which are made optional for nonprofessional services by clause (vi), all of Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA.) (2) Denial between and within terms based on services performed in either a professional or nonprofessional capacity when the services are provided to or on behalf of an educational institution. (Clause (v) of Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA.) In the past, the Department had taken the position that, if an optional denial clause is enacted by a State, it must be applied equally to all services described in that clause. UIPL No. 15- 92, the Department's most recent issuance on the optional clauses, provided that a State may not apply the optional denial to some nonprofessional services while excluding other nonprofessional services. UIPL No. 15-92 also restated the Department's position that "if State law contained a provision implementing clause (v), it was required to apply equally to all services described in Section 3304(a)(6)(A)(i)-(iv)." (Emphasis in original.) The Department has reconsidered its position and concluded that, if a State so chooses, an optional denial clause need not be applied to all services described in that clause. In addition, the Department has concluded that States have other options concerning the implementation of the optional clauses. This UIPL is issued to provide the Department's new position to the States. Any previous Departmental position conflicting with this new position is superseded. Discussion: As noted above, the between and within terms denial provisions are exceptions to the equal treatment requirement of Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA. The equal-treatment requirement only describes the relationship of the services required to be covered by Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA, to other services covered by State law. It does not address how exceptions to its requirements are to be applied. Therefore, the equal treatment requirement is not relevant to this matter. Those clauses of Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA, which provide for the optional application of the between and within terms denial all provide that UC "may be denied." It is clear that the denial contained in these clauses is discretionary. No optional clause explicitly requires that all provisions of the clause be applied. Social legislation such as the FUTA is to be construed broadly with respect to coverage and benefits. Exceptions to its statutory remedies are to be narrowly construed. (See United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704, 712 (1947).) Accordingly, since the denial provisions are exceptions to the broad coverage provisions of Section 3304(a)(6)(A), they are given a narrow reading. The narrower reading in this case dictates that the application of an optional clause may be limited as to scope and/or time by a State. Such a reading, which permits a State to differentiate among services, or to otherwise limit application of a clause, could also result in extending coverage to the broadest number of unemployed persons, thereby accomplishing the basic purpose of the coverage requirements of Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA. That is because States could choose to not apply the optional provisions to those services performed by classes of workers more deeply affected by unemployment. This discussion also indicates that an optional denial clause is not to be treated as an absolute which the States must implement in its entirety, but instead as a ceiling beyond which a State may not go without violating the equal treatment requirement of Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA; a lesser application is possible. This approach has previously been followed by the Department where a "reasonable assurance" was required if a State implemented an optional clause. As was also noted in UIPL No. 15-92: States do have the option of adopting a more restrictive test than the "reasonable assurance" test for nonprofessional services. For example, instead of requiring the reasonable assurance requirement as specified under clause (ii), the State law may include a provision requiring a contract to return to work in the next year or term. Applying this concept to the optional denial clauses, States are henceforth granted discretion to apply any optional clause to some or all of the classes of services described in that clause. The term "classes of services" pertains to services performed as, for example, a custodian, cafeteria worker, bus driver, clerical worker or other nonprofessional class. Similarly, States may also limit the time period to which the optional clauses apply. Once a State elects to limit the application of a clause, the limitation must be uniformly applied throughout the State. A State may not, for example, treat services performed for one school district differently than services performed in another school district or treat services performed in a nonprofit educational institution differently from services performed in a public educational institution. This is because the denial clauses refer explicitly to "services" and certain periods of time, thereby providing a basis for providing the States the option to limit the provisions of an optional denial clause to particular classes of services or periods of time. There is no similar reference in the statute to schools, school districts or other geographical and political subdivisions and, there-fore, no basis for allowing disparate treatment of such geographical or political subdivisions. Interpretation and Application: The clauses of Section 3304(a)(6)(A), FUTA, relating to the optional application of the between and within terms denials to "nonprofessional" services are interpreted as follows: An optional clause represents an exception to the equal treatment requirement beyond which a State may not go. However, States may limit the application of the clause in the following situations, provided the limitation is applied uniformly throughout the State: (1) Clause (ii)(I) may be applied to some or all of the classes of services described in that clause. The term "classes of services" pertains to services performed as, for example, a custodian, cafeteria worker, bus driver, clerical worker or other nonprofessional class. (2) A more restrictive test than the "reasonable assurance" test required under the Department's interpretation of that term may be adopted. (3) The denial period may be limited to a shorter period than the period specified in clause (ii)(I), and the denial period may be applied only to selected vacation periods or holiday recesses specified in clause (iii). Action Required: State Administrators should provide this information to appropriate staff.

Background: The attached tables contain preliminary estimates of unemployment insurance (UI) average employer contribution rates as reported by State agencies. The first table contains estimates for calendar years 1994 and 1995. For comparative purposes, actual rates for 1993 are also included. The rates shown are the average percent that UI taxes are of wages at or below the State taxable wage base. To permit comparison of data among States with different taxable wage bases, estimated tax rates for each year are also shown based on total wages. The second table shows the relative taxing effort being accomplished by each State in 1994 based on total wages. Action Required: State Administrators are requested to provide this information to the appropriate staff.