Hannan v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act

• Decision Date: 15 August 1950
• Parties: , 21 A.L.R.2d 1068 HANNAN v. ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT. MASCO v. ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

Page 483

75 A.2d 483

137 Conn. 240, 21 A.L.R.2d 1068

HANNAN v. ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT.

MASCO v. ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Aug. 15, 1950.

Harry Silverstone, Assistant Attorney General, with whom on the brief, was William L. Hadden, Attorney General, for the appellant (defendant).

James F. Rosen, New Haven, for the appellees (plaintiffs).

Before BROWN, C. J., JENNINGS, BALDWIN and O'SULLIVAN, JJ., and COMLEY, Superior Court Judge.

BALDWIN, Judge.

These two appeals were argued together because they present facts substantially alike and raise the same question of law. The issue determinative of the appeals is whether the plaintiffs are eligible for benefits under the Connecticut Unemployment Compensation Act, Gen.St.1949, § 7495 et seq., for such periods of time as they were receiving subsistence allowances under the federal Servicemen's Readjustment Act, 38 U.S.C.A. § 693 et seq.

The plaintiff Hannan was employed in Bridgeport until separated from his employment on June 16, 1949, owing to lack of work. He moved to Pennsylvania, where he registered for work and filed claims for unemployment benefits against Connecticut at the Pennsylvania bureau of employment and unemployment compensation. The next day he entered Pittsburgh Technical Institute. He attends school from 8:30 a. m. until 1 p. m. He receives $75 each month as a subsistence allowance from the federal government under the Servicemen's Readjustment Act. If he could obtain daytime employment his schedule of studies at the Institute could be arranged so that he could attend night classes.

The plaintiff Masco worked in Stratford until separated from his employment in October, 1948, because of lack of work. He returned to Pennsylvania, where he worked until April, 1949, when he was laid off owing to lack of materials. While employed there in January, 1949, he entered a radio school to continue his schooling. After he was separated from his employment he attended classes from 8:15 a. m. to 12:45 p. m. five days a week. He receives a subsistence allowance of $105 a month under the Servicemen's Readjustment Act. He has registered for employment anmd filed benefit claims against Connecticut at the Pennsylvania bureau but has had no referrals. There are no evening classes in the school which he attends. If he could find employment he would give up his school work.

The administrator of the Connecticut Unemployment Compensation Act denied compensation and was sustained by the commissioner. On appeal to the Superior Court the decisions of the commissioner were reversed and the appeals of the plaintiffs were sustained; from the judgments entered thereon the administrator appeals to this court.

The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, as amended, commonly called the 'G. I. Bill of Rights,' entitled the plaintiffs to the benefits of the educational or training program provided in the act, including the cost of tuition and subsistence at the rate of $75 a month if single or $105 a month if, while school is attended, there is one dependent, to be paid by the federal government. 58 Stat. 287, as amended 38 U.S.C. § 744, Sup. 3, 1950, Vet. Reg. No. 1(a), Part 8, 38 U.S.C.A. note following section 744.

On March 24, 1943, the Congress enacted a law providing for the vocational rehabilitation of veterans disabled in the service. 57 Stat. 43, Vet. Reg. No. 1(a), Part 7, 38 U.S.C.A. note following section 744. Vocational training programs were authorized as well as authority given to contract with public and private institutions for such additional training facilities as might be necessary to accomplish the purposes of the act. This act further authorized additional pension payments necessary to bring the recipient up to the full amount allowed for total and temporary disability. It expressly provided that if the course of vocational rehabilitation furnished to the veteran consisted of training on the job by an employer the administrator might reduce the pension to an amount considered equitable and just but not below the amount of pension or retirement pay the veteran would be entitled to receive for a service-connected disability if not taking the training course.

On June 22, 1944, Congress passed the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, hereinbefore referred to, 'to provide Federal Government aid for the readjustment in civilian life of returning World War II veterans.' 58 Stat. 284. An educational and training program such as was originally inaugurated for disabled veterans was extended to all veterans, and subsistence allowance was provided. Veterans attending courses on a part-time basis or receiving compensation for performing productive labor in their training program were entitled to such lesser sums, if any, as the administrator might determine. In addition thereto, title 5 of the act made available to former members of the armed forces who were unemployed a so-called readjustment allowance at the rate of $20 a week for not exceeding fifty-two weeks. It was expressly stated, 58 Stat. 295, § 700(a), 38 U.S.C.A. § 696(a), that 'no such allowance shall be paid for any period for which [the veteran] receives increased pension under part of Veterans Regulation 1(a) or a subsistence allowance under part of such regulation.' It was the plain intent of the framers of the act that a veteran might qualify (a) as a disabled veteran who would be entitled to an educational and training program with an increased pension for his subsistence, (b) for an educational program with a subsistence allowance for the time he was engaged in it, or (c) for a readjustment allowance for each week of unemployment not exceeding a total of fifty-two weeks. The receipt of any one of these benefits precluded him from being eligible for either of the others. It was the manifest intention of the Congress that those who received one form of benefit should not also receive another. Kimbrough & Glen, American Law of Veterans, p. 224, § 295; 58 Stat. 298, § 1000, 38 U.S.C.A. § 696e.

General Statutes, § 7508, provides, inter alia: 'Disqualifications. An individual shall be ineligible for benefits * * * (4) during any week with respect to which the individual has received or is about to receive...