First Nat. Bank of Miami v. Florida Indus. Com'n

• Decision Date: 11 February 1944
• Citation: 154 Fla. 74,16 So.2d 636
• Parties: FIRST NAT. BANK OF MIAMI v. FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

16 So.2d 636

154 Fla. 74

FIRST NAT. BANK OF MIAMI v. FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION.

Florida Supreme Court

February 11, 1944

Appeal from Circuit Court, Leon County; W. May Walker Judge.

Lilburn R Railey, of Miami, for appellant.

Burnis T Coleman and John P. Mack, both of Tallahassee, for appellee.

ADAMS, Justice.

The First National Bank of Miami filed its petition seeking to require the Florida Industrial Commission to redetermine its rate of contribution of unemployment compensation.The basis of the demand is that petitioner contributed for the three full calendar years of 1940, 1941 and 1942.

The circuit court dismissed the petition.On appeal here his question arises Is an employer eligible for rate variation from the standard rate of contributions during any calendar year if his employment record has not been chargeable with benefit payments throughout the three consecutive preceding calendar years?

The statute relied on for rate variation is Sec. 443.08, F.S. '41, F.S.A., which provides for the requested relief when petitioner has been chargeable with benefit payments throughout three consecutive calendar years.We must look to the statute to determine when the employer's account was first chargeable.The same statute provides that any benefits paid to any individual shall be charged to the employment record of the most recent employer within the base period of the individual.Turning then to Sec. 443.03, F.S. '41, F.S.A., we find 'Base Period' is defined as the first eight of the last nine completed calendar quarters immediately preceding the first day of an individual's benefit year.'Benefit Year' is then defined.The terms used are technical in nature and the definition given by the legislature will control.The petition was, therefore, insufficient in failing to show that the employer's account was chargeable with benefits in 1940 or for three full calendar years.

To secure a redetermination of the rate of contribution the employer's record is not required to be actually charged with benefit payments but it must be chargeable.That is, it must be susceptible to being charged.

The decree is affirmed.

BUFORD, C. J., and TERRELL, BROWN, and SEBRING, JJ., concur.

THOMAS, J., agrees to conclusion.

CHAPMAN, Justice (dissenting).

This cause is before the Court on motion to dismiss the bill of complaint for want of equity.The allegations of the bill of complaint are to the effect that the appellant was subject to the terms of the Unemployment...