Jacobs v. Office of Unemployment Compensation and Placement, 30020.

• Decision Date: 17 April 1947
• Docket Number: 30020.
• Citation: 179 P.2d 707,27 Wn.2d 641
• Parties: JACOBS v. OFFICE OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION AND PLACEMENT et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

179 P.2d 707

27 Wn.2d 641

JACOBS v. OFFICE OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION AND PLACEMENT et al.

No. 30020.

Supreme Court of Washington

April 17, 1947

Department 2

Proceeding for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation ActRem.Supp.1945, §§ 9998-140 et seq., by Gladys E. Jacobs against the Office of Unemployment Compensation and Placement of the State of Washington, and the commissioner thereof.From a judgment of the Superior Court affirming a decision of the commissioner of unemployment of the State of Washington which had upheld a prior decision by a departmental appeal tribunal wherein applicant's claim for benefits was denied, Gladys E. Jacobs appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court, Grays Harbor County; J. M. Phillips judge.

F. W Loomis, of Aberdeen, for appellant.

Smith Troy and Bernard A. Johnson, both of Olympia, for respondents.

STEINERT Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court affirming a decision of the commissioner of unemployment compensation and placement of the state of Washington which had upheld a prior decision by a departmental appeal tribunal wherein an applicant's claim for benefits under the unemployment compensation act was denied.

At all times here involved, appellant, Gladys E. Jacobs, was a married woman living with her husband and five children in Junction City, Washington, about five miles from Hoquiam.During World War II, and for a period of approximately two years beginning September 8, 1943, she was employed as a riveter at the Hoquiam plant of Boeing Aircraft Company.She worked on a day shift and received a wage of $1.10 1/2 an hour.During that same period, her husband was employed as a laborer in a plywood factory in or near Hoquiam, although his particular work shift changed from time to time.By October, 1945, the oldest of the five children had attained the age of eighteen years, and the youngest six years.One of the children, a boy, also worked, at least for a while, in or near Hoquiam.

The only experience that appellant had previously had in working for wages was in about 1941, when she was employed as a fish packer for a short time, at a wage of $3.15 a day.

During the period of appellant's employment at the Boeing plant, she rode to work in the family car, at such times as she had charge of it; a part of the time, when her work shift was coincident with that of her husband, she accompanied him; at times, her son, on his way to work, would take her in the car; and at other times, when the car was not available to her, she would ride with neighbors, and sometimes, at night, would walk home, at least a part of the way.

On September 5, 1945, appellant was separated from work at the Boeing plant, owing to the fact that the plant closed down.On September 11th, she filed with the office of unemployment compensation and placement, hereinafter referred to as 'the department,' her application for the statutory 'initial determination' of benefits potentially payable to her under the provisions of the Unemployment Compensation Act.

Upon the filing of her application, she was classified as potentially eligible to receive benefits under the act, subject to the eligibility requirements thereof.At the same time, she was offered what is termed a 'referral,' to work as a laborer at Grays Harbor Chair Manufacturing Company, in Hoquiam, at the wage of 68 1/2 cents an hour.She refused to accept the referral, or job, however, for the reasons, as stated by her in writing that 'I have sinus trouble and I don't think I could stand working in wood dust.Also the pay is too low.I was making $1.10 1/2 an hour at Boeing's.'

On September 14, 1945, an authorized representative of the department made a formal 'Determination of Denial of Benefits' with respect to the appellant, stating as the reason for the denial the fact that appellant had refused the referral to Grays Harbor Chair Manufacturing Company.This determination was delivered to the appellant on September 25, 1945.

In the meantime, on September 18th, appellant renewed her claim for benefits and was at that time referred to a job at Haines Seafood Packing Co., in Hoquiam, at a wage of seventy-five cents an hour.She was willing to accept that job, but when she communicated with that company she was told that they were not then hiring anyone.

Again, on September 25th, the department referred her to another job, involving employment at Harbor Plywood Company, in Aberdeen.She refused to accept that job, however, because of the alleged prevalent dust and also because they rotated shifts, making it impossible for her to be home at night with her children.

Upon receipt by her of the 'Determination of Denial of Benefits,' mentioned above, appellant on September 25, 1945, gave notice of appeal to the appeal tribunal of the department.The grounds of her appeal, as stated by her in the notice, were: 'I don't think the work offered at Grays Harbor Chair Co. was suitable at 68 1/2¢ an hour.Anyway I have sinus trouble and can't work in dust.'

The matter came on regularly for hearing Before the appeal tribunal, at which time evidence was taken consisting of appellant's testimony and certain records of the department.Further reference to that evidence will be made later.The tribunal, after hearing and considering the evidence, made findings of fact, from which it concluded that, although appellant had good cause for failing to apply for the job at Grays Harbor Chair Manufacturing Company, she was nevertheless not 'available for work,' within the meaning of the Unemployment Compensation Act.Upon that expressed conclusion, the appeal tribunal rendered its decision denying appellant benefits under the act until she should establish that she was available for work and in all other respects legally eligible.

Appellant then petitioned the commissioner of the department to review the decision of the appeal tribunal.Upon such review, the decision of the tribunal was affirmed.She then appealed to the superior court and, after a hearing, the court entered judgment affirming the decision of the appeal tribunal, as approved by the commissioner.The appeal to this court then followed.

Appellant's assignments of error present two questions for decision upon this appeal.On the first question, appellant's contention is that the appeal tribunal erroneously and without jurisdiction determined an issue which was not involved in the appeal to that tribunal.This contention is based upon the following situation shown by the record: In the original 'Determination of Denial of Benefits' to the appellant, the official representative of the department denied the statutory benefits on the ground that appellant had refused the 'referral' to Grays Harbor Chair Manufacturing Company, contrary to the requirements of § 76, chapter 35, p. 115, Laws of 1945, Rem.Supp.1945, § 9998-214; whereas the appeal tribunal, on appeal from that determination, concluded that appellant had good cause for her refusal to apply for that particular job, but, nevertheless, concluded that appellant was shown to be not 'available for work,' within the meaning of § 68(c) of the 1945 act, Rem.Supp.1945, § 9998-206(c), and, on that basis, rendered its decision denying benefits to her.

In order to elucidate the immediate question, as well as the one to follow later, we shall refer to certain sections of the unemployment compensation act, contained in chapter 35, Laws of 1945, and reproduced in Rem.Supp.1945, § 9998-140 et seq.For convenience, we shall here employ the section numbers used in Rem.Supp.1945.

Section 9998-206 provides:

'An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive waiting period credit or benefits with respect to any week only if the Commissioner finds that

* * *

* * *

'(c)he is able to work, and is available for work in any trade, occupation, profession, or business for which he is reasonably fitted.To be available for work an individual must be ready, able, and willing, immediately to accept any suitable work which may be offered to him and must be actively seeking work * * *.'(Italics ours.)

Section 9998-214 provides that an individual shall be disqualified for benefits if the commissioner finds that he has failed, without good cause, either to apply for available, suitable work when so directed by the employment office or the commissioner, or to accept suitable work when offered to him, or to return to his customary self-employment (if any) when so directed by the commissioner.

Sections 9998-220and9998-221 provide, respectively, for filing application for initial determination and claim for benefits, on the part of the individual claimant, and for the making of an initial determination, by an official representative of the department, of such application, stating the maximum amount of benefits potentially payable to the claimant.

Section 9998-224 provides that if waiting period credit or the payment of benefits shall be denied to any individual, the claimant shall be promptly notified by mail or delivery of written notice of the denial and the reasons therefor.

Section 9998-256 provides that any applicant or any interested party may file with the appeal tribunal of the department an appeal from such determination.

Section 9998-258 reads as follows:

'In any proceeding Before an appeal tribunal involving a dispute of an individual's initial determination, all matters covered by such initial determination shall be deemed to be in issue irrespective of the particular ground or grounds set forth in the notice of appeal.

'In any proceeding Before an appeal tribunal involving a dispute of an individual's claim for waiting period credit or claim for benefits, all matters and provisions...