Armstrong v. Adams, 6446
| Decision Date | 24 July 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 6446,6446 |
| Citation | 113 N.H. 367,308 A.2d 842 |
| Parties | Marcelle ARMSTRONG et al. v. Benjamin C. ADAMS, Commissioner, Department of Employment Security et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Nixon, Christy & Tessier, Manchester (Robert Christy, Manchester, orally), for plaintiffs.
Edward F. Smith, Joseph Stewart, Concord, and Andre J. Barbeau, N.H. Department of Employment Security, Concord, for defendant Adams.
Hamblett, Kerrigan, LaTourette & Lopez and Joseph C. Krolikowski, Nashua, for defendant Melville Shoe Corp. LAMPRON, Justice.
Appeal to the superior court under RSA 282:5, subd. G from a decision of the appeal tribunal of the department of employment security (RSA 282:5, subd. C (Supp.1972)) upholding the denial by a certifying officer of plaintiff's claim for unemployment compensation. It is agreed that the claims of other plaintiffs similarly situated will be governed by the decision in this case. The matter was submitted on an agreed statement of facts to Keller, C.J., who reserved and transferred without ruling all questions of law.
The issue to be decided is whether an additional payment made to the plaintiffs for the work week ending November 30, 1969, under an agreement between the union of which they were members and their employer Melville was to be considered under RSA ch. 282 in determining if the plaintiffs were entitled to a waiting-period credit or the payment of weekly benefits for that week. This additional payment was made by J. F. McElwain Company an operating unit of Melville Shoe Corporation by whom plaintiffs were employed. It is agreed that the payment was made to the workers under the provisions of article XVI of the agreement. It was made 'on December 4, 1969 (the regular payday being the Thursday following the week) by check (which included Thanksgiving holiday pay and the wages for services rendered during the week) bearing the weekending date of November 30, 1969 and . . . (was) carried on Melville's records as wages paid with respect to the week-ending November 30, 1969'.
Article XVI reads in part as follows:
Plaintiff Armstrong worked on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday (November 24-26) and earned wages of $48. She was paid $16 holiday pay for Thanksgiving (November 27), which does not affect her eligibility. In addition she received the $60 additional payment under the agreement making total gross wages of $124 for the week ending November 29. The plant was closed and no work was available on Friday or Saturday. It is agreed that but for the $60 payment either a waiting-period credit or payment of some unemployment compensation benefit would have been allowed her.
The parties agree that the $60 additional payment constitutes wages for all purposes within the Unemployment Compensation Act. See RSA 282:1, subd. M(3) (Laws 1969, 460:3); RSA 282:1, subd. O. Plaintiffs disagree, however, that this payment should be considered as wages earned in the week ending November 29, 1969, as carried on the books of Melville and ruled by the department of employment security. Plainti...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appeal of Simplex Wire & Cable Co. Inc.
...and without blame or voluntary but supported by "good cause." RSA 282-A:32, I(a) and (b). See generally Armstrong v. Adams, 113 N.H. 367, 369, 308 A.2d 842, 843 (1973). To this policy, the legislature has made an exception by providing that "[a]n individual shall be disqualified for benefit......
-
Gorecki v. State, 6882
...of an unemployment compensation act intended to provide some measure of relief against involuntary unemployment. Armstrong v. Adams, 113 N.H. 367, 369, 308 A.2d 842, 843 (1973). The relative merits of the labor dispute are immaterial. Almada v. Administrator Unemployment Comp., 137 Conn. 38......
-
Appeal of Durocher, 91-544
...provide benefits if because of [involuntary] partial employment [the employee's] wages drop below that minimum." Armstrong v. Adams, 113 N.H. 367, 369, 308 A.2d 842, 843 (1973). In the instant case, the claimants involuntarily left Sanders Associates. They engaged in less than full-time wor......
-
McIntire v. State
...with the policy of the statute which is to 'provide some measure of relief against involuntary unemployment.' Armstrong v. Adams, 113 N.H. 367, 369, 308 A.2d 842, 843 (1973). Whether or not unemployment is truly involuntary is a question of fact for the trial On March 31, by agreement of th......