Crocker v. Illinois Dept. of Labor

• Decision Date: 19 January 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-169,K-M,83-169
• Citation: 121 Ill.App.3d 185,459 N.E.2d 332,76 Ill.Dec. 695
• Parties: , 76 Ill.Dec. 695 Lowell CROCKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR: Alan Bernardi, Director of the Department of Labor, Defendants-Appellees, and Leonard Weiss, Manager, Winnebago County Bureau of Employment Security Division of Unemployment Insurance, Illinois Department of Labor; Bruce W. Barnes, Chairman of the Board of Review of the Illinois Department of Labor; Eugene E. Christy, Member of the Board of Review of the Illinois Department of Labor; Davide W. Tomei, Member of the Board of Review of the Illinois Department of Labor; Oliver Brown, Secretary for the Board of Review of the Illinois Department of Labor; andart, the Employer, Defendants.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 332

459 N.E.2d 332

121 Ill.App.3d 185, 76 Ill.Dec. 695

Lowell CROCKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR: Alan Bernardi, Director of

the Department of Labor, Defendants-Appellees,

and

Leonard Weiss, Manager, Winnebago County Bureau of

Employment Security Division of Unemployment Insurance,

Illinois Department of Labor; Bruce W. Barnes, Chairman of

the Board of Review of the Illinois Department of Labor;

Eugene E. Christy, Member of the Board of Review of the

Illinois Department of Labor; Davide W. Tomei, Member of

the Board of Review of the Illinois Department of Labor;

Oliver Brown, Secretary for the Board of Review of the

Illinois Department of Labor; and K-Mart, the Employer, Defendants.

No. 83-169.

Appellate Court of Illinois,

Second District.

Jan. 19, 1984.

Prairie State Legal Services, Rockford, Mary Therese Wolf, for plaintiff-appellant.

Neil F. Hartigan, Atty. Gen., Patricia Rosen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, for defendants-appellees.

SEIDENFELD, Presiding Justice:

Lowell Crocker appeals from a judgment affirming the decision of the Illinois Department of Labor Board of Review, which affirmed the denial of compensation benefits to him.

The Board decided Crocker was ineligible for benefits under section 500 C of the Unemployment Insurance Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 48, par. 420) because he voluntarily left his job without good cause attributable to the employer. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 48, par. 431.) The circuit court affirmed the Board's decision on the basis that the employee had voluntarily left his job without good cause attributable to the employer under section 601 A (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 48, par. 431), and the exceptions set forth in section 601 B(5) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 48, par. 431) did not apply.

Crocker had been employed full time as a manager of a tire store until April 1981, when the store closed. He filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits with the division of unemployment insurance.

While collecting benefits, Crocker took a part-time job as a construction worker and later as a part-time employee with K-Mart, began working for K-Mart as a mechanic/janitor sometime around July 4, 1981, and voluntarily quit on July 18, 1981. He continued to report to the unemployment office and collected benefits from July 26, 1981 through August 29, 1981. A claims adjudicator declared that Crocker was ineligible for benefits from July 26 through October 17, 1981, or until he found work equal to at least six times the weekly benefit amount, whichever occurred earlier, and that he had been overpaid from July 26 through August 29, 1981. Upon redetermination, a claims adjudicator found that, under section 900 of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 48, par. 490) Crocker left his job without cause attributable to the employer and did not report that to the Unemployment Insurance Office. The claims adjudicator found, therefore, that Crocker must repay the benefits paid to him from July 26 through August 29, 1981. Crocker filed an application for reconsideration with the Department of Labor, maintaining that he was eligible for unemployment benefits because he left unsuitable work voluntarily with good cause under section 601 B(5).

Crocker testified that from March 1980 until he lost his job in April 1981, as the manager of the tire store, his earnings from this job were approximately $1,200 per month. At K-Mart, plaintiff worked approximately 20 hours per week at an hourly rate of $3.50 per hour. While he thought he would receive training as a mechanic, most of his duties consisted of mopping floors and cleaning the bathroom. He also stated he was dissatisfied with being scheduled to work on Sundays, which interfered with his teaching Sunday school and attending church, with the lack of opportunity for advancement, and with the unpleasant and unprofessional atmosphere. He reported the earnings from this job to the Department of Labor. He stated there was no reduction in his weekly benefit amount for two of the three weeks he worked at the K-Mart position and a reduction in the third week was inconsequential.

The referee affirmed the claims adjudicator's determination and denied the claim for benefits. He held that the employee voluntarily left employment without good cause attributable to the employer under section 601 A or within the limited exceptions specified in section 601 B(5).

The Board of Review and the Circuit Court affirmed.

On appeal, Crocker contends that the decision of the Board is against the manifest weight of the evidence. At issue is the validity of the agency's finding that the employee was ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits because he voluntarily left his work without good cause contrary to section 601 A of the Act which provides, as material:

"An individual shall be ineligible for benefits for the week in which he has left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the employing unit and, thereafter, until he has become reemployed * * *." Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 48, par. 431 A.

and contrary to the exceptions in section 601 B(5) of the Act to work

"[w]hich he had accepted after separation from other work, and the work which he left voluntarily would be deemed unsuitable under the provisions of section 603." Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 48, par. 431 B(5).

The Act is designed to provide unemployment insurance benefits for the unemployed person who is willing, anxious, and ready to accept suitable employment and who meets certain statutory conditions prescribed. The Act permits claimants to supplement their benefits with earnings from part-time employment. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 48, par. 402.) As the receipt of unemployment insurance benefits is a conditional right the burden of proving eligibility before the Board rests with the claimant. Yadro v. Bowling (1980), 91 Ill.App.3d 889, 893, 97 Ill.Dec. 128, 414 N.E.2d 1244; Rosenbaum v. Johnson (1978), 60 Ill.App.3d 657, 662, 18 Ill.Dec. 105, 377 N.E.2d 258.

Under section 603, a claimant may reject work or referral to employment if the job in question is not "suitable." (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 48, par. 433.) In determining whether certain work is suitable, consideration must be given to various factors, including any risk to the claimant's health or safety, the claimant's physical fitness, his or her prior training and experience, the claimant's prior earnings, the length of time for which the claimant has been employed, the prospects for securing local work in the claimant's customary occupation, and the distance of the available work from claimant's residence. Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 48, par. 433; Keystone Steel & Wire Division v. Department of Labor (1976), 37 Ill.App.3d 704, 708, 346 N.E.2d 399.

It has been held that a claimant is justified in refusing employment where the job offers a level of skill and rate of pay not commensurate with his previous employment, depending on the circumstances in each case. Thus, a skilled worker who has been unemployed for only a short time may refuse to accept unskilled work with a substantial pay reduction. (Keystone Steel & Wire Division v. Department of Labor (1976), 37 Ill.App.3d 704, 709, 346 N.E.2d 399.) A claimant, thus, is entitled to benefits for a reasonable period to enable him or her to seek work under conditions comparable to those of his or her former employment. (37 Ill.App.3d 704, 708, 346 N.E.2d 399.) However, the longer the claimant has been out of work, the more willing he or she must be to perform different tasks, travel farther, and accept lower pay. Doyle v. Board of Review (1975), 31 Ill.App.3d 968, 970, 334 N.E.2d 776.

The Department, in its Manual of Benefit Precedent Decisions, has provided some guidance in evaluating a claimant's eligibility after voluntarily leaving employment. The manual provides that work may be unsuitable for any worker under section 603 due to wages or working conditions. (M.B.P.D.T. No. 285, VL425.05 (November 15, 1982).) In particular, the manual states that a reduction of 10 to 15% in wages may be sufficient to render work unsuitable. (R.W. 500.35.) The manual recognizes that a claimant's prior work experience and earnings may render a job unsuitable. (M.B.P.D.T. No. 285, VL425.05 (November 15, 1982).) The manual provides sample cases to illustrate this interpretation. In example "2", a claimant, who earns $300 a week, on March 8 accepts a temporary job at $3.35 per hour, after searching two months without finding suitable employment, and on March 22 leaves, is still eligible for unemployment benefits because the temporary job is unsuitable in consideration of his previous wages. Other factors to be taken into account under section 603 are the claimant's length of unemployment and prospects of securing local work at his customary occupation. The manual provides that the minimum number of weeks which can be considered a reasonable length of time to seek skilled work is 10 weeks. "A very menial job is never suitable for a skilled worker." R.W. 295.05.

To the extent that good cause and suitability are factual issues, the agency's determination is prima facie true and correct and should be not disturbed on review unless the findings are against the manifest weight of the evidence. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1981, ch. 110, par. 3-110; Peterson v. Board of Trustees (1973), 54 Ill.2d 260, 262-63, 296 N.E.2d 721.) Further, agency guidelines, such as the Department's Manual, are presumed to be valid, and a court should not disregard them unless they are unreasonable. Brown v. Sexner (1980), 85 Ill.App.3d 139, 152, 39 Ill.Dec. 947, 405 N.E.2d 1082.

Based on Crocker's prior employment, training, experience, wages and the length of time he has been unemployed, the K-Mart job was unsuitable under section 603 and therefore pursuant to section 601 B(5), he is not disqualified from benefits for voluntarily leaving this job. Crocker was a skilled worker. He held a BS degree and had worked since 1979 as a...