108.04(17)(k)1.1. Establishes a benefit year for the period for which retroactive payment is to be made, in the manner prescribed by rule of the department, if the school year employee has not established such a benefit year;

108.04(18)(a)(a) The wages paid to an employee who performed services while the employee was an alien shall, if based on such services, be excluded from the employee’s base period wages for purposes of sub. (4) (a) and ss. 108.05 (1) and 108.06 (1) unless the employee is an alien who was lawfully admitted for permanent residence at the time such services were performed, was lawfully present for the purpose of performing such services, or was permanently residing in the United States under color of law at the time such services were performed, including an alien who was lawfully present in the United States as a result of the application of the provisions of 8 USC 1182 (d) (5). All claimants shall be uniformly required to provide information as to whether they are citizens and, if they are not, any determination denying benefits under this subsection shall not be made except upon a preponderance of the evidence.

108.04(18)(am)(am) Paragraph (a) does not preclude an employee from establishing a benefit year during a period in which the employee is ineligible to receive benefits under par. (a) if the employee qualifies to establish a benefit year under s. 108.06 (2) (a).

108.04(18)(b)(b) Any amendment of 26 USC 3304 (a) (14) specifying conditions other than as stated in par. (a) for denial of benefits based on services performed by aliens, or changing the effective date for required implementation of par. (a) or such other conditions, that is a condition of approval of this chapter for full tax credit against the tax imposed by the federal unemployment tax act, shall be applicable to this subsection.

108.04(19)(19) Professional athletes. An employee who performs services substantially all of which consist of participating in sports or athletic events, or training or preparing to so participate, shall be ineligible for benefits based on any employment for any week of unemployment which occurs during the period between 2 successive sport seasons or similar periods if the employee performed such services in the first such season or period and there is a reasonable assurance that the employee will perform such services in the 2nd such season or period.

108.04 AnnotationEmployees at Wisconsin terminals of trucking companies who were laid off as a result of a strike at a Chicago terminal were eligible for unemployment compensation because the Chicago terminal was a separate establishment. Liberty Trucking Co. v. DILHR, 57 Wis. 2d 331, 204 N.W.2d 457 (1973).

108.04 Annotation“New work” in sub. (9) includes indefinitely laid off employees who are recalled, as well as new job applicants. The Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations must determine whether a laid-off employee had good cause for refusing work on a different shift with a higher pay scale. Allen-Bradley Co. v. DILHR, 58 Wis. 2d 1, 205 N.W.2d 129 (1973).

108.04 AnnotationWhen a union that had given a notice of contract termination withdrew it before a strike began, there was no labor dispute in progress when the employer later closed its plant. Kansas City Star Co. v. DILHR, 60 Wis. 2d 591, 211 N.W.2d 488 (1973).

108.04 AnnotationIntent is a crucial question in determining misconduct under sub. (5), but it is not determinative. Carelessness or negligence that manifests equal culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design is misconduct. McGraw-Edison Co. v. DILHR, 64 Wis. 2d 703, 221 N.W.2d 677 (1974).

108.04 AnnotationA self-employed claimant who was both the employee and the employer could not disassociate the claimant’s fault or misfortune as an employer so as to become eligible for unemployment benefits under sub. (7) (b). Fish v. White Equipment Sales & Service, Inc., 64 Wis. 2d 737, 221 N.W.2d 864 (1974).

108.04 AnnotationMasons, unemployed because their employer locked out masons’ laborers, were ineligible under sub. (10) for benefits because the masons would have been working “but for” a bona fide labor dispute. De Leeuw v. DILHR, 71 Wis. 2d 446, 238 N.W.2d 706 (1976).

108.04 AnnotationRefusal to comply with an employer’s grooming code that was not necessary for safety was not misconduct under sub. (5). If an employee’s grooming choices create an unreasonable safety hazard in violation of an employer’s reasonable safety rule, the rule may be justified notwithstanding the right of free expression. Consolidated Construction Co. v. Casey, 71 Wis. 2d 811, 238 N.W.2d 758 (1976).

108.04 AnnotationStriking employees discharged during a strike are not ineligible for benefits because of sub. (10). Hiring permanent replacements is not an automatic discharge of the employees who are replaced. The employer must take some affirmative action to replace the employees, determined by the conduct of the employer and employees. Carley Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Inc. v. Bosquette, 72 Wis. 2d 569, 241 N.W.2d 596 (1976).

108.04 Annotation“Fault” under sub. (1) (f), in the context of an employee’s failure to pass a licensing examination, means blameworthy or negligent conduct, not incompetence. Milwaukee County v. DILHR, 80 Wis. 2d 445, 259 N.W.2d 118 (1977).

108.04 AnnotationPicketing in violation of a collective bargaining agreement was misconduct under former sub. (6) (a), 1977 stats. Universal Foundry Co. v. DILHR, 86 Wis. 2d 582, 273 N.W.2d 324 (1979).

108.04 AnnotationThe decision of a company’s sole shareholders, who were also its sole employees, to file for voluntary bankruptcy disqualified them for unemployment benefits. Hanmer v. DILHR, 92 Wis. 2d 90, 284 N.W.2d 587 (1979).

108.04 AnnotationAn employee who refused on religious grounds to pay mandatory union dues did not voluntarily terminate employment under sub. (7) (a). Nottelson v. DILHR, 94 Wis. 2d 106, 287 N.W.2d 763 (1980).

108.04 AnnotationAn employee who voluntarily terminated part-time employment, which prior to termination had not affected eligibility, became ineligible under sub. (7) (a). Ellingson v. DILHR, 95 Wis. 2d 710, 291 N.W.2d 649 (Ct. App. 1980).

108.04 AnnotationAn employee who was transferred to a workplace 25 miles away and did not receive a pay increase to cover the increased commuting costs had good cause to quit. Farmers Mill of Athens, Inc. v. DILHR, 97 Wis. 2d 576, 294 N.W.2d 39 (Ct. App. 1980).

108.04 AnnotationFalsification of an employment application with respect to a criminal record constitutes “misconduct” under sub. (5), regardless of materiality to the employee’s particular job. Miller Brewing Co. v. DILHR, 103 Wis. 2d 496, 308 N.W.2d 922 (Ct. App. 1981).

108.04 AnnotationWhether leaving work without permission as the result of an alleged safety violation was misconduct is determined based on whether a reasonable person would reasonably believe that the given working conditions presented a hazard to health or safety. Wehr Steel Co. v. DILHR, 106 Wis. 2d 111, 315 N.W.2d 357 (1982).

108.04 AnnotationUnder sub. (1) or (7), a pregnant employee who could not perform her specific job but could do other work was eligible for benefits. Rhinelander Paper Co. v. DILHR, 120 Wis. 2d 162, 352 N.W.2d 679 (Ct. App. 1984).