Copeland v. Okla. Emp't Sec. Com

• Decision Date: 23 April 1946
• Docket Number: Case Number: 32104
• Citation: 197 Okla. 429,172 P.2d 420,1946 OK 138
• Parties: COPELAND v. OKLAHOMA EMPLOYMENT SEC. COM. et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1946 OK 138

172 P.2d 420

197 Okla. 429

COPELAND v. OKLAHOMA EMPLOYMENT SEC. COM. et al.

Case Number: 32104

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: April 23, 1946

Syllabus

¶01.MASTER AND SERVANT-Oklahoma Employment Security Act-Burden of proof on one seeking benefits.

In a proceeding by an unemployed person to secure benefits under the Oklahoma Employment Security Act, the burden of proof to establish the claimant's rights to benefits rests upon the claimant.

2.SAME-Judicial review of order of Board of Review-Conclusiveness of findings by board.

In a proceeding for judicial review of an order of the Board of Review, under findings of the Board of Review as to subd. 7, Title 40, sec. 216, O.S. 1941, the facts, if supported by evidence, in the absence of fraud, are conclusive and the jurisdiction of the court is confined to questions of law.

3.SAME-Needs of claimant not factor in eligibility to receive benefits.

Eligibility for receipt of benefits under the Oklahoma Employment Security Act bears no relation to the needs of the claimant or the degree of calamity he has suffered.The financial circumstances surrounding the unemployed worker are not factors, however unfortunate or unfavorable they may be.

4.SAME--Burden on employee to furnish his transportation to and from work.

Where there is no duty resting upon an employer, from custom or contract, to furnish transportation to an employee to and from work, the burden is cast upon the employee to furnish such transportation.

5.SAME--Claimant of benefits not "available for work" where he could not provide necessary transportation.

When the burden is cast upon an employed person to provide himself with transportation to and from available employment, and such person is unable to provide such transportation for himself, even through no fault of his own, he is not available for work within the meaning of the Oklahoma Employment Security Act.

Appeal from District Court, Lincoln County; Kenneth Jarrett, Judge.

Action by Martin W. Copeland to review decision of Oklahoma Employment Security Commission and the Board of Review.From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.Affirmed.

W. L. Johnson, of Chandler, for plaintiff in error.

Burton Duncan, Chief Atty., and Gerald S. Tebbe, Asst. Atty., both of Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.

RILEY, J.

¶1 This is an action to review a decision of the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission and the Board of Review denying plaintiff's claim for benefits under the Oklahoma Employment Security Act, ch. 6, Title 40, O.S. 1941.The court sustained the order of the Board of Review denying the claim, and plaintiff appeals.

¶2Claimant is a married man, about 63 years of age, and resides, with his wife and two children, at Meeker, Okla., a town of about 500 population.He filed his claim with the commission December 2, 1943.The claim, among other things, states:

"Claimant also states that he contacted the labor union in Okla. City and that there was jobs open but they worked from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and that he was unable to secure a ride or obtain transportation from Meeker, Okla., to Okla. City and work during those hours.

"Claimant states he is able and available for work and has a Statement of Availability from the U. S. Engineers.Claimant states he has no transportation of his own and he has never driven an automobile."

¶3Claimant was found eligible for compensation for 16 weeks at $16 per week.January 4, 1944, the commission redetermined the claim and found that claimant had been unemployed since October 20, 1943, and that he was registered with the U. S. Employment Service as a laborer; that on December 30, 1943, claimant was offered a "referral" to a job at Norman, Okla., at 65c per hour with transportation paid from Shawnee to Norman, that claimant refused the referral, stating that the job was too far from Meeker and he had no transportation.Continued claim for week ending December 25, 1943, and subsequent claims were disallowed.

¶4Claimant appealed to the appeal tribunal, where the order of the commission was affirmed.He then appealed to the Board of Review.The Board of Review found that claimant was not available for work and denied the claim.Thereupon, claimant commenced this action in the district court of Lincoln county, under subd. 7, sec. 216, Title 40, O.S. 1941.

¶5 After issues were joined, the court, upon application of claimant, remanded the cause to the Board of Review to take additional evidence covering the matter of the purported "referral" of a job at Norman, and all other matters having a bearing on the subject matter of the action, authorized the board, after hearing such additional evidence, to modify its findings of fact and conclusions, and directed the Board of Review to file such additional or modified findings and conclusions together with a transcript of the additional record.

¶6 Additional evidence was taken before the Board of Review and that board made certain additional findings but reaffirmed its former findings that claimant was not available for work, reaffirmed its order denying the claim, and certified the additional findings and its order back to the court.

¶7 Section 214, Title 40, O.S. 1941, sets forth the conditions under which an unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits under the act, under subdivisions (a) to (e), inclusive.The record discloses, and it is conceded, that claimant met all the requirements except that provision in subdivision (c), which states that the claimant must be able to work and be available for work.The record clearly shows that claimant was able to work.Therefore, the only question in this case is whether under the record he has shown himself to be "available for work" within the meaning of said act.

¶8 The rule in an action of this nature is that the burden of proof to establish a claimant's right to benefits under the Employment Security Act rests upon the claimant.Queener v. Magnet Mills, 179 Tenn. 416, 167 S.W. 2d 1;S. S. Kresge Co. v. Unemployment Commission, 349 Mo. 590, 167 S.W. 2d 838;Haynes v. Unemployment Commission, 353 Mo. 540, 183 S.W. 2d 77.

¶9 In the latter case, it is said:

". . . We think it is apparent that the burden of proof to establish a claimant's right to benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law rests upon the claimant.Queener v. Magnet Mills, 179 Tenn. 416, 167 S.W. 2d 1.An unemployed individual is eligible to receive benefits only if the commission finds that the required conditions have been met.The claimant assumes the risk of non-persuasion and we think the general rule applicable to ordinary court proceedings applies.'The burden of proof, meaning the obligation to establish the truth of the claim by preponderance of the evidence, rests throughout upon the party asserting the affirmative of the issue...This burden of proof never shifts during the course of the trial'."

¶10Subd. (d)(7), sec. 216, supra, provides that:

"In any proceeding under this Subsection the findings of the Board of Review as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive and the jurisdiction of said court shall be confined to questions of law.No additional evidence shall be received by the court but the court may order additional evidence to be taken before the Board of Review, and the Board may, after hearing such additional evidence, modify its findings of fact or conclusions and file such additional or modified findings and conclusions, together with the transcript of the additional record with the court."

¶11We deem it unnecessary to review the evidence in detail.The record conclusively shows that claimant resides, and has for seven or eight years resided, in the town of Meeker, Okla.; that there was no opportunity for employment in said town or its immediate vicinity; that claimant earned his employment credits at and in the vicinity of the Douglas Aircraft Company plant, about ten or eleven miles east of Oklahoma City and about 35 miles from Meeker, and other employment in. that vicinity; that other than said plant and the Oklahoma City Air Depot nearby, there was no market for labor for...