Clark v. Board of Review of Illinois Dept. of Labor

• Decision Date: 24 July 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-1396,83-1396
• Citation: 81 Ill.Dec. 828,467 N.E.2d 950,126 Ill.App.3d 559
• Parties: , 81 Ill.Dec. 828 Mark T. CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The BOARD OF REVIEW OF the ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Bruce W. Barnes, Chairman, Eugene Christy, Member, Davide E. Tomei, Member, Defendants- Appellants.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 950

467 N.E.2d 950

126 Ill.App.3d 559, 81 Ill.Dec. 828

Mark T. CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The BOARD OF REVIEW OF the ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Bruce W. Barnes, Chairman, Eugene Christy, Member Davide E. Tomei, Member, Defendants- Appellants.

No. 83-1396.

Appellate Court of Illinois First District, Second Division.

July 24, 1984.

Neil F. Hartigan, Atty. Gen., Edward C. Hurley, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, for defendants-appellants.

STAMOS, Justice:

The defendant, the Board of Review of the Illinois Department of Labor, denied plaintiff's claim for extended unemployment benefits because defendant determined that plaintiff had failed to conduct "a systematic and sustained work effort" to obtain work during a certain weekly period. Thereafter plaintiff filed a complaint for administrative review. After a hearing on that complaint, the circuit court reversed defendant's determination and found that plaintiff was eligible for extended unemployment benefits.

In this appeal, defendant contends that the decision of the circuit court should be reversed because plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements for extended unemployment benefits and its decision to deny such benefits was supported by substantial evidence. ¹

Plaintiff was employed as a painter-laborer until January 1982. At that time, he was laid off from his position due to lack of work. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a claim for unemployment benefits, which was granted. When the unemployment benefits terminated, plaintiff filed a second claim for extended unemployment benefits.

On July 30, 1982, the claims adjudicator for the Bureau of Employment Security made a determination that plaintiff had failed to conduct a "systematic and sustained" effort to obtain work during the period of July 18, 1982, until July 24, 1982. On August 12, 1982, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the claims adjudicator's decision. After a hearing was held on August 29, 1982, the hearing referee affirmed the decision of the claims adjudicator. In doing so, the referee found that plaintiff's search consisted of three telephone calls as well as three in-person contacts during the aforesaid one-week period, and he concluded that this type of search would not establish compliance with the rigorous search-for-work requirements applicable to an extended period.

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to defendant. On December 8, 1982, defendant affirmed the decision of the hearing referee. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a complaint for administrative review. During the hearing on plaintiff's complaint, plaintiff advised the court that during the week, in question, he called three out-of-town jobs. Two were in Cleveland and one was in Houston, Texas. Plaintiff further stated that he made three telephone contacts with local area firms, which were unsuccessful. After hearing this evidence, the circuit court held that defendant had sought work in the required manner. The court then reversed defendant's decision.

As stated above, defendant contends that the decision of the circuit court should be reversed since plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements for extended unemployment benefits which requires a systematic and sustained work search and because the administrative decision to deny benefits was supported by substantial evidence. We agree.

The purpose of the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act is to provide compensation benefits for an unemployed individual in order to relieve his economic distress which was caused by involuntary unemployment. (Wadlington v. Mindes (1970), 45 Ill.2d 447, 452, 259 N.E.2d 257.) In Illinois, the receipt of unemployment insurance benefits is a conditional right and the burden of proving eligibility before the agency rests with the claimant. (See generally, Yadro v. Bowling (1980), 91 Ill.App.3d 889, 893, 47 Ill.Dec. 128, 414 N.E.2d 1244.) However, in order to be eligible for benefits, claimants must meet certain terms and conditions prescribed by the Act. (See Wadlington v. Mindes, 45 Ill.2d 447, 454, 259 N.E.2d 257.) Section 409(K) of the Act states that an individual, who has applied for extended unemployment benefits, will be treated as actively engaged in seeking work during any week if (a) the individual has engaged in a systematic and sustained effort to obtain work during such week, and (b) the individual furnishes tangible evidence that he has engaged in such effort during the week. Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 48, par. 409 K 5 a, b.

Plaintiff asserted that he attempted to obtain employment during the week in question by telephoning three potential employers and also by personally going to three businesses. Plaintiff maintained that he was unable to find employment due to a depressed labor market. After having carefully examined the record on appeal, we agree with defendant's determination that such efforts did not constitute a systematic and sustained work search on the part of plaintiff. ²

Moreover, pursuant to section 409, an individual must, after failing to find work within his field, make an effort to seek work outside his field. This is due to the more rigorous requirements to qualify for extended unemployment benefits. Although an individual is not required to take an "unsuitable" job, he must relax his personal requirements with respect to the type of hours, rate of pay and travel...