Geremia v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act

• Decision Date: 31 March 1959
• Citation: 150 A.2d 203,146 Conn. 264
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Anthony GEREMIA v. ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT, et al. Philip POPPLE et al. v. ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT, et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 203

150 A.2d 203

146 Conn. 264

Anthony GEREMIA v. ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT, et al.

Philip POPPLE et al. v. ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT, et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 31, 1959.

William S. Zeman, Hartford, for plaintiff in each case.

William K. Cole, Hartford, with whom, on the brief, was George C. Hastings, Hartford, for defendant Fafnir Bearing Co. in first case.

Jose M. Calhoun, Hartford, for defendant Royal McBee Corp. in second case.

Harry Silverstone, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, was Albert L. Coles, Atty. Gen., for defendant Admr., Unemployment Compensation Act.

Before KING, MURPHY and MELLITZ, JJ., and SHEA and ALCORN, Superior Court Judges.

MELLITZ, Associate Justice.

The decisive question presented in these cases is whether holiday pay, so-called, is to be considered earned remuneration in determining whether an employee is partially unemployed under the provisions of § 31-229 of the General Statutes, Revision of 1958 (Rev.1949, § 7502), and so entitled to receive partial unemployment benefits. The pertinent portion of the statute reads: 'An eligible individual who is partially unemployed throughout a week * * * shall be paid with respect to such week an amount equal to the excess of his benefit rate for total unemployment over the total remuneration of any nature payable to him for services of any kind during such week * * *. An individual shall be deemed to be partially unemployed in any week of less than full-time work in which he has failed to earn remuneration of any nature amounting to at least three dollars more than his benefit rate for total unemployment.'

The unemployment commissioner affirmed an award of benefits made by the administrator to each of the plaintiffs. The defendant employer, in each of the cases, appealed to the Superior Court, where, upon stipulation, the questions of law determinative of the appeals were reserved for the advice of this court.

The facts material to a decision are similar in both cases. Each plaintiff was employed as a production worker and was a member of the labor union with which his employer had a collective bargaining agreement. Each agreement provided for holiday pay at regular hourly rates to be given for not more than eight hours, with respect to designated holidays, to employees who were not called in to work on such days. To be entitled to receive holiday pay an employee had to have worked the full shift on his regularly scheduled workday preceding and following the holiday, except in certain specified contingencies. An employee who failed to report for work on a holiday, when required, and to perform the work assigned was not to receive holiday pay. In the Geremia case, for work on a paid holiday, an employee was entitled to pay computed as though he had not worked, plus double time for hours worked. During the week ending January 4, 1958, Geremia did not work on Monday or Tuesday, December 30 [146 Conn. 267] and 31, 1957, when the plant was closed for inventory, nor on Wednesday, January 1, 1958, which was a recognized holiday. On Thursday and Friday, January 2 and 3, he worked eight hours on the regular shift. His gross pay for the week was $50.91, of which $16.40 was holiday pay for New Year's day and $34.51 was for work on January 2 and 3. His weekly benefit rate under the unemployment compensation act was $40. He applied for and was awarded partial unemployment benefits for the week ending January 4, 1958. In the Popple case, an employee required to work on a paid holiday was entitled to be paid for double time and one-half. For the week ending December 28, 1957, Popple received $59.85, of which $29.85 was for hours actually worked, and $30 was for Christmas holiday pay. For the week ending January 4, 1958, he received $59.55, of which $29.73 was for hours actually worked, and $29.82 for New Year's holiday pay. His weekly benefit rate was $40. He applied for and was awarded partial unemployment benefits for the weeks ending December 28, 1957, and January 4, 1958. In each case, in determining the benefits due the plaintiff, the administrator disregarded the amount paid for holiday pay and held that only the amount paid for work actually performed was to be considered earned remuneration within the meaning of § 31-229.

In the view of the administrator, holiday pay is in the nature of a fringe benefit, so-called, which, like vacation pay, the employer pays to compensate the employee for loss of wages. As such, it would be remuneration in the form of compensation for loss of wages within the meaning of § 31-236(4) of the 1958 Revision, and not remuneration for services, or earned remuneration, within § 31-229. An individual who seeks unemployment benefits is disqualified and ineligible for benefits, under the provisions of § 31-236(4), during any week with respect to which he has received or is about to receive remuneration in the form of payment by way of compensation for loss of wages. The legislative purpose in disqualifying such an individual from receiving benefits was to prevent a duplication of benefits to one who is not earning wages during a particular week but is receiving from his employer a payment to make up for the loss. Zabrowski v. Administrator, 146 Conn. 215, 149 A.2d 310. We have held that a payment of vacation pay made from the employer's resources is a payment of compensation for loss of wages within this statute. Kelly v. Administrator, 136 Conn. 482, 487, 72 A.2d 54; Conon v. Administrator, 142 Conn. 236, 246, 113 A.2d 354. The contention of the employers here is that holiday pay is not in the same category but is earned remuneration or wages, within § 31-229, for services rendered by the employee and should be treated as such when the determination of the employee's eligibility for partial unemployment benefits is made.

It is clear from an examination of the contracts here that while there is a similarity between vacation pay and holiday pay in the sence that, to be eligible for such pay, an employee is not required to be physically present and performing work on the employer's oremises during the vacation or holiday period, there are requirements connected with the right of an employee to holiday pay which are not applicable in the case of vacation pay and clearly distinguish the two. The contracts contain eligibility requirements which an employee must meet to qualify for vacation or holiday pay. To be eligible for vacation pay, the plaintiff Geremia had to have been on the company pay roll on July 1 and to have had at least one year of continuous service, and the plaintiff Popple had to have been in the employ of the company on the last Friday of June and actively employed by the company for six months or more. If these eligibility requirements were met the employee was entitled, without more, to receive the vacation pay prescribed in the contract. To be eligible for holiday pay, the plaintiff Geremia had to have at least ninety days of continuous service as of the date of the holiday, and the plaintiff Popple had to have served a three-month probationary period. In addition to these eligibility...