Hagadone v. Kirkpatrick

• Decision Date: 23 December 1944
• Docket Number: 7204
• Citation: 154 P.2d 181,66 Idaho 55
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: RAY R. HAGADONE, Appellant, v. E. A. KIRKPATRICK, doing business as Post Falls Lumber & Manufacturing Company, and UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION DIVISION, Respondents

154 P.2d 181

66 Idaho 55

RAY R. HAGADONE, Appellant, v. E. A. KIRKPATRICK, doing business as Post Falls Lumber & Manufacturing Company, and UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION DIVISION, Respondents

No. 7204

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 23, 1944

1. Unemployment compensation

The holding of examiner denying claim for unemployment compensation benefits because claimant was unavailable for work in holding himself available for only one job which he knew could not be had for many months, and findings and order of Industrial Accident Board thereon denying claim and dismissing cause for claimant's failure to accept suitable work, were conflicting, and cause was returned to board to make findings under Unemployment Compensation Law. (Sess. Laws 1935, 3d Ex. Sess., chap. 12, as amended.)

2. Unemployment compensation

The fact that 60 year old claimant for unemployment compensation benefits who had been earning over $2 an hour as bandsaw filer until employer discontinued operations for season refused one job of firing a boiler at 88 cents an hour and another as common laborer at 80 cents an hour would not necessarily render him ineligible or unavailable for work, in absence of a thorough investigation by Industrial Accident Board and findings as to whether claimant could obtain the same or similar job within reasonable distance from his home. (Sess. Laws 1935, 3d Ex. Sess., chap. 12, as amended.)

3. Unemployment compensation

Strict rules of procedure are not required before Industrial Accident Board in proceeding for unemployment compensation benefits. (Sess. Laws 1935, 3d Ex. Sess., chap. 12, as amended.)

4. Unemployment compensation

Where unsatisfactory evidence is furnished by party claiming unemployment compensation benefits, same rule applies as in workmen's compensation cases, and board should make further and individual investigation, and to that end may subpoena and examine witnesses. (Sess. Laws 1935, 3d Ex Sess., chap. 12, as amended.)

5. Unemployment compensation

The Unemployment Compensation Law must be liberally construed to accomplish its purposes. (Sess. Laws 1935, 3d Ex. Sess chap. 12, as amended.)

6. Unemployment compensation

"Availability for work" within Unemployment Compensation Law requires no more than availability for suitable work which claimant has no good cause for refusing. (Sess. Laws 1935, 3d Ex Sess., chap. 12, as amended.)

Appeal from the Industrial Accident Board.

Reversed.

Ray R. Hagadone, pro se, did not file brief.

Bert H. Miller, Attorney General, and Thos. Y. Gwilliam, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent, Unemployment Compensation Division.

In construing the two sections, sec. 4 and 5, of chap. 182 of the 1941 Sess. Laws, in pari materi, it would appear that the claimant must be able and available to accept any suitable work which may be offered him, and if his availability is materially limited and restricted, it cannot then be said that he is, in fact, in the labor market or that actually he is out of work because no work can be had by him if his failure to accept such work is without good cause.

It is submitted, therefore, that the matter should be sent to the Board with instructions to the Board to make further findings, particularly as to whether or not the defendant was willing to accept any suitable work even though the work was not the same work that the claimant had been accustomed to perform.

Budge, J. Holden, C. J., and Givens and Dunlap, J. J., concur. Ailshie, J., did not sit at the hearing and took no part in the decision in this case.

OPINION

Budge, J.

Appellant claims unemployment compensation benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:

Appellant, who is sixty years of age, resides in Coeur d'Alene, and for approximately 27 years was employed as a band-saw filer by the Post Falls Lumber & Manufacturing Company. In November, 1943, the company discontinued operations for the season. Appellant applied at the employment service office in his district, as required by law, and was offered two jobs, both at Farragut, one was firing a boiler at 88 cents an hour, and the other was common labor at 80 cents an hour. He had received as wages as a band-saw filer $ 2.02 1/2 an hour while employed by the Post Falls Lumber & Manufacturing Company. Neither of the jobs offered him at Farragut was investigated by him. Claimant testified his physical condition was such he could not accept these jobs. "Work in the warm all day and wait for transportation in the cold. Sometimes you have to wait an hour."

The senior claims examiner, for the Unemployment Compensation Division, in what is designated in the record as Ineligible Determination, as grounds for denying appellant's claim states: "Unavailable for work. Claimant is holding self available for only one job which he knows cannot be had for many months. Too much restriction." Appellant, being dissatisfied with the examiner's holding, appealed to the Industrial Accident Board. A hearing was had...