C.F.R. » Title 20 » CHAPTER V—EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › PART 616—INTERSTATE ARRANGEMENT FOR COMBINING EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES

20 C.F.R. § 616.6

Definitions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

These definitions apply for the purpose of this arrangement and the procedures issued to effectuate it.

(a) State. “State” includes the States of the United States of America, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

(b) State agency. The agency which administers the unemployment compensation law of a State.

(c) Combined-Wage Claim. A claim filed under this arrangement.

(d) Combined-Wage Claimant. A claimant who has covered wages under the unemployment compensation law of more than one State and who has filed a claim under this arrangement.

(e) Paying State. A single State against which the claimant files a Combined-Wage Claim, if the claimant has wages and employment in that State's base period(s) and the claimant qualifies for unemployment benefits under the unemployment compensation law of that State using combined wages and employment.

(f) Transferring State. A State in which a Combined-Wage Claimant had covered employment and wages in the base period of a paying State, and which transfers such employment and wages to the paying State for its use in determining the benefit rights of such claimant under its law.

(g) Employment and wages. “Employment” refers to all services which are covered under the unemployment compensation law of a State, whether expressed in terms of weeks of work or otherwise. “Wages” refers to all remuneration for such employment.

(h) Secretary. The Secretary of Labor of the United States.

(i) Base period and benefit year. The base period and benefit year applicable under the unemployment compensation law of the paying State.

[36 FR 24992, Dec. 28, 1971, as amended at 39 FR 45215, Dec. 31, 1974; 43 FR 2625, Jan. 17, 1978; 71 FR 35514, June 21, 2006; 73 FR 63072, Oct. 23, 2008]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1983–2018 · leading case: Dewhurst v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 148 P.3d 378 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dewhurst v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 148 P.3d 378 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). “See 20 C.F.R. §§ 616.6 , 616.8;- Dep’t of Labor & Employment Reg.”
Wisconsin Vocational, Technical & Adult Educ. Servs. Dist. Consortium v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 371 N.W.2d 811 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “20 C.F.R. 616.6 (g) and (i) (1981). See also Eboch v.”
Benjamin Tran Vs. Bd. of Review (Bd. of Review, Dep't of Labor) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018). “" 20 C.F.R. § 616.6 (d). A combined wage claim may be filed by "[a]ny unemployed individual who has had employment covered under the unemployment compensation law of two or more States, whether or not the individual is monetarily qualified under one or more of them.”
Brockel v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 674 P.2d 98 (Utah 1983). · cites it 2× “” 20 CFR § 616.6 (f) (emphasis added). Brockel claims that because North Dakota had no wages or employment to transfer to Utah it was not a “transferring state” as defined in 20 CFR § 616.”
In re the Claim of Johnson, 199 A.D.2d 727 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993). “"Base period and benefit year” are defined as "[t]he base period and benefit year applicable under the unemployment compensation law of the paying State” (20 CFR 616.6 [i]) which, in New York, is "the period of fifty-two consecutive weeks ending on the Sunday immediately…”
— 20 C.F.R. § 616.6(e) — 1 case
Wisconsin Vocational, Technical & Adult Educ. Servs. Dist. Consortium v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 371 N.W.2d 811 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “20 C.F.R. 616.6 (g) and (i) (1981). See also Eboch v.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 616.6(f) — 1 case
Wisconsin Vocational, Technical & Adult Educ. Servs. Dist. Consortium v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 371 N.W.2d 811 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “20 C.F.R. 616.6 (g) and (i) (1981). See also Eboch v.”
— 20 C.F.R. § 616.6(g) — 1 case
Wisconsin Vocational, Technical & Adult Educ. Servs. Dist. Consortium v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 371 N.W.2d 811 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). “20 C.F.R. 616.6 (g) and (i) (1981). See also Eboch v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.