Dubkowski v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act

• Decision Date: 06 February 1963
• Citation: 188 A.2d 658,150 Conn. 278
• Parties: , 97 A.L.R.2d 1120 Edward DUBKOWSKI et al. v. ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

Page 658

188 A.2d 658

150 Conn. 278, 97 A.L.R.2d 1120

Edward DUBKOWSKI et al. v. ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Feb. 6, 1963.

Edward B. Scott, New Britain, for appellant (defendant Stanley works).

Harry Silverstone, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, was Albert L. Coles, Atty. Gen., for appellee (named defendant).

William S. Zeman, Hartford, for appellees (plaintiffs).

Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, SHEA and ALCORN, JJ.

SHEA, Associate Judge.

For a number of years the three plaintiffs, who were skilled workers, had been employed at The Stanley Works in New Britain. Two of them were in labor grade 14, earning a minimum of $2.35 an hour, and the third was in labor grade 13, earning $2.25 an hour. In October, 1960, because of a slack in business, they were transferred to lower-rated jobs, at $1.90 an hour. On November 18, because of the continuance of the slack in business, all three were offered jobs, to commence the next workday, as sweepers in grade 11, at $1.69 an hour. The rate of pay offered for the new work was the prevailing rate for sweepers in the labor area. Under the contract between the company and the union, an employee could refuse a transfer to a job which was two or more labor grades below his regular grade without suffering a loss in seniority. Each of the plaintiffs refused to accept the transfer to the sweeper's job, thereby acquiring a layoff status. It was found by the unemployment commissioner, on the employer's appeal, that the administrator granted benefits on the ground that the offer of work as a sweeper constituted, in these particular circumstances, an offer of unsuitable employment. The administrator's decision was affirmed by the commissioner. The Superior Court dismissed the employer's appeal from the decision of the commissioner, and the employer thereupon appealed to this court.

The employer claims that (1) the plaintiffs have confined themselves to work comparable in financial return and social standing to that from which they were laid off and, thus, have so far restricted their exposure to the labor market that they are not available for work within the meaning of the law, and (2) the plaintiffs were disqualified from receiving benefits because they failed to accept suitable work when it was offered to them. No claim is made that the plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the other statutory requirements of eligibility for benefits.

Section 31-235 of the General Statutes provides that an unemployed person shall be eligible to receive benefits only if it has been found that 'he is physically and mentally able to work and is available for work and has been and is making reasonable efforts to obtain work * * *.' To be available for work within the meaning of the statute, one must be ready, able and willing to accept suitable employment. He must be exposed unequivocally to the labor market. Leclerc v. Administrator, 137 Conn. 438, 439, 78 A.2d 550; Reger v. Administrator, 132 Conn. 647, 651, 46 A.2d 844. The test of availability is subjective. Stapleton v. Administrator, 142 Conn. 160, 164, 112 A.2d 211; Schettino v. Administrator, 138 Conn. 253, 261, 83 A.2d 217. A claimant is not entitled to unemployment compensation when he limits his availability for work because of personal reasons unrelated to the employment. Leclerc v. Administrator, supra, 441; Northup v. Administrator, 148 Conn. 475, 478, 172 A.2d 390. Here, we are not dealing with self-imposed restrictions which are personal in nature. The reasons for the refusal of the plaintiffs to accept the proffered employment were inextricably related to the employment. At the termination of their old work and when the sweepers' jobs were offered to them, the new jobs did not call for the use of any of their skill, training or experience; the new pay rate was substantially lower; and the labor contract between the employer and the union to which the plaintiffs belonged expressly permitted the refusal, without loss of seniority, of a transfer to another job which was two or more labor grades below the regular job grade of the employee.

If the work offered to the plaintiffs was unsuitable, that unsuitability would be good cause for them to refuse to accept it. § 31-236. The mere fact that a person places certain restrictions on the type of work he is willing to accept does not, in itself, make him unavailable for work within the intent and meaning of § 31-235. If, however, the restrictions imposed by him reduce his prospects of employment to such an extent that he is no longer genuinely exposed to the labor market, he is no longer available for work. Northup v. Administrator, supra, 148 Conn. 477, 172 A.2d 392; Freeman, 'Able to Work and Available for Work,' 55 Yale L.J. 123, 126.

Section 31-236 provides: 'An individual shall be ineligible for benefits * * * if the administrator finds that, being otherwise eligible for benefits, * * * he has failed without sufficient cause either to apply for available, suitable work when directed so to do by * * * the administrator, or to accept suitable work when offered him * * * by an employer, * * * provided work * * * shall not be deemed suitable unless the administrator finds that it may reasonable be expected to yield remuneration at a rate greater than the individual's benefit rate for total unemployment and, in determining whether or not any work * * * is suitable for an individual, suitable employment shall mean either employment in his usual employment or other employment for which he is reasonably fitted, * * * provided such employment is within a reasonable distance of his residence or last employment, and, in determining whether or not any work * * * is suitable for an individual, the administrator may consider the degree of risk involved to his health, safety...