AEM, INC. v. Ecke

• Decision Date: 22 October 1959
• Docket Number: No. 14308.,14308.
• Citation: 106 US App. DC 240,271 F.2d 506
• Parties: AEM, INC., t/a S. Groome Eareckson, Appellant, v. Ida H. ECKE, deceased, and District Unemployment Compensation Board, Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

106 US App. DC 240, 271 F.2d 506 (1959)

AEM, INC., t/a S. Groome Eareckson, Appellant, v. Ida H. ECKE, deceased, and District Unemployment Compensation Board, Appellees.

No. 14308.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued September 15, 1959.

Decided October 22, 1959.

Mr. Milton M. Burke, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Louis Mackall, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Joseph Notes and John A. Weil, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee District Unemployment Compensation Board.

Before WASHINGTON, DANAHER and BURGER, Circuit Judges.

DANAHER, Circuit Judge.

The District Unemployment Compensation Board awarded benefits to one Ida H. Ecke but ruled that since she had voluntarily quit her employment without good cause, she was subject to a penalty as to the period from June 12, 1955 through July 16, 1955. She appealed from so much of the order as reduced her maximum entitlement by the amount of $150. Her employer, AEM, Inc., cross appealed, asserting that its reserve account might not lawfully be charged at all. The Board answered asking the District Court for affirmance. All parties sought summary judgment, and the District Court granted the Board's motion. Mrs. Ecke and her employer then appealed to this court, but because of her intervening death, her appeal is no longer before us. Remaining is the employer's cross appeal challenging the District Court's judgment for the Board.

Mrs. Ecke, a seamstress, for some years had been employed by AEM, Inc. on a call basis. Her employer, engaged in repairing and servicing rugs, had laid her off about May 30, 1955 because of insufficient work. Early in June, 1955, she filed a claim for unemployment benefits but shortly thereafter was recalled for further work. She continued her casual employment, as needed, until June 16, 1955, when it was announced by the employer that the business henceforward was to be conducted on an open shop basis. Mrs. Ecke had been a member of her union for some eight years. Rather than jeopardize her union membership including her status as to seniority rights, priority opportunity for specialized employment, insurance and other union benefits, Mrs. Ecke quit the job.

D.C.Code § 46-310(a) (Supp. VII, 1959) provides in pertinent part:

"(a) An individual who has left his most recent work voluntarily without good cause * * * shall not be eligible for benefits with respect to the week in which such leaving occurred and with respect to not less than four nor more than nine consecutive weeks of unemployment which immediately follow such week, as determined by the Board in such case according to the seriousness of the case. In addition such individual\'s total benefit amount shall be reduced in a sum equal to the number of weeks of disqualification multiplied by the weekly benefit amount." (Emphasis supplied.)

The Board ruled that a sufficient penalty to be imposed because of Mrs. Ecke's voluntary relinquishment of her employment lay in disqualifying her from receiving benefits from June 12 thro...