Bowman v. Troy Launderers & Cleaners

• Decision Date: 14 May 1943
• Docket Number: 33397.
• Citation: 9 N.W.2d 506,215 Minn. 226
• Parties: BOWMAN v. TROY LAUNDERERS & CLEANERS, Inc., et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

9 N.W.2d 506

215 Minn. 226

BOWMAN v. TROY LAUNDERERS & CLEANERS, Inc., et al.

No. 33397.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

May 14, 1943

Syllabus by the Court.

In action for unemployment compensation benefits, where defense asserted that claimant had disqualified himself under Minn.St.1941, § 268.09(4), (Mason St.1941 Supp. § 4337-27[4]), by a refusal to accept available, suitable work evidence held to sustain finding of director of state division of employment and security that employment offered was not suitable and that claimant was justified in not accepting it.

Elmquist, Felhaber & Elmquist, of St. Paul for appellant.

Samuel H. Bellman, of Minneapolis (Perry Scheftel, of Minneapolis of counsel), for claimant-respondent.

J A. A. Burnquist, Atty. Gen., and Kent C. van den Berg and Knute Stalland, Asst. Attys. Gen., for respondent Division of Employment and Security.

HENRY M. GALLAGHER, Chief Justice.

Claimant's employment in the dry-cleaning department of Troy Launderers & Cleaners, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as employer), terminated December 6, 1941. On December 8 he registered with the state division of employment and security for employment and filed a claim for unemployment benefits. The employer objected to the payment of benefits to claimant on the ground that it had offered him work at $20 per week and that he had refused to accept it. The division determined that claimant was disqualified under Minn.St.1941, § 268.09(4), Mason St.1941 Supp. § 4337-27(4), for failure to accept available, suitable work. Claimant duly appealed to an appeal tribunal, which, by a two-to-one decision, vacated the division's decision and allowed the claim for unemployment compensation. On appeal to the director of the division, the findings of fact and decision of the appeal tribunal were affirmed by order of the deputy director dated August 7, 1942. The appeal to this court was taken by the employer from that order.

It is asserted that the deputy director erred in upholding the decision and findings of the appeal tribunal to the effect that claimant was not disqualified by reason of his failure to accept available, suitable work, on the ground that the findings and decision are not in accordance with the evidence and the law.

The evidence supports findings of the following facts: Claimant was employed by the employer as a steam cleaner in the dry-cleaning department for about five years prior to December 6, 1941. On November 28, 1941, he received a notification by letter from the employer that one week from that date it would not be able to provide him with work in that department until resumption of 'better dry cleaning volume.' In the same letter the employer advised claimant that it had made arrangements to give him work such as he previously had during off seasons and asked him to report the next week 'for this change over to another department.' On December 3 claimant conferred with an officer of the employer and was informed that his work for the off season would consist of light garage work, stock work, and some truck driving. His wage at his regular work approximated $24 per 40-hour week. The off-season work offered him would have netted him $20 for a 48-hour week. Claimant is not experienced or trained as a mechanic, nor is he licensed as a truck driver. He is a member of the Laundry Workers and Cleaners International Union, but is not affiliated with any mechanics' or drivers' unions. Before giving his employer a definite answer whether or not he would accept the work offered, claimant sought the counsel of the business representative of the union to which he belonged. He was advised that if he accepted the work and engaged himself...