James R. Edwards v. Gary E. Stein, Administrator Ohio Bureau of Employment Services
| Decision Date | 03 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | 46067,84-LW-1839 |
| Parties | JAMES R. EDWARDS, APPELLANT-APPELLEE v. GARY E. STEIN, ADMINISTRATOR OHIO BUREAU OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, et al, APPELLEE-APPELLANT. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Civil Appeal from the Common Pleas Court, Case No. 042,227.
For Appellant-Appellee: Thomas W. Weeks, 1223 West Sixth Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113.
For Appellee-Appellant: Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Attorney General, and Richard A. Szilagyi, Asst. Attorney General Ohio Bureau of Employment Services, 145 South Front Street Columbus, Ohio 43215.
JOURNAL ENTRY and OPINION
This appeal is taken from a judgment of the Common Pleas Court pursuant to R.C. 4141.28(o) which reversed a decision of the Board of Review of the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (OBES) which disallowed extended benefits under the Trade Adjustment Act (TRA), 19 U.S. 225 et seq.
The trial court found that it was unreasonable to deny the claimant (Edwards) such benefits when such claimant took all steps necessary to secure such benefits but that his eligibility for such benefits expired solely because of appellee's failure to process claimant's application and to enroll him in a training school.
Claimant was laid off from the Ford Motor Company for lack of work. On September 2, 1979, he filed an application for unemployment benefits with OBES and was allowed such benefits for 26 weeks. On March 27, 1980, claimant filed an application for Trade Readjustment Allowances which was approved and which allowed claimant an additional fifty-two (52) weeks, retroactive to September 2, 1979. Claimant exhausted his regular unemployment compensation on the week ending March 1, 1980. He exhausted his fifty-two (52) weeks of TRA benefits on August 30, 1980.
The question at issue in this case concerns claimant's request for TRA allowances while in training which he filed February 13, 1980. Claimant stated that he needed to change his occupation and asked to be considered for Vocational Training for the following occupations: (1) Stationary Engineer; (2) Air conditioning Mechanic. This application was marked "Training Pending." On June 9, 1981, subject claimant's request was approved for training at Westside Institute of Technology, Cleveland, Ohio, to commence on September 14, 1981 for 52 weeks.
19 U.S.C. Sec. 2293(a) was amended, in pertinent part, to read as follows:
"(2) A trade readjustment allowance shall not be paid for any week after the 52-week period beginning with the first week following the first week in the period covered by the certification with respect to which the worker has exhausted (as determined for purposes of section 231 (a) (3)(B)) all rights to that part of his unemployment insurance that is regular compensation."
Pursuant to the above cited amended provision, OBES terminated claimaint's TRA training benefits effective with the week beginning October 4, 1981 after claimant had enrolled for two weeks of training.
Claimant filed a request for reconsideration on the basis that he was told by the employment service that there were no funds but that subsequently he was told by his union that if he paid the training costs he could collect TRA benefits; that he then applied for TRA benefits on the basis that he would pay for such training and that his application for TRA benefits was approved on that basis. Claimant's request for reconsideration was overruled by the administrator.
Claimant appealed to the Board of Review on the basis that he had been advised improperly by OBES; that he would have attended school at an earlier date if he had been told of the way that the schooling was being handled and that he was told by OBES that there was no schooling available.
At the hearing before the OBES referee, claimant was the only witness who appeared without counsel. Claimant's testimony, in effect, was that he did not receive his schooling earlier because the persons at the employment office did not know "how to handle TRA" claims and did not give him the information that he needed to qualify for TRA training benefits and that he had to obtain such information from a state representative.
Claimant also testified that he had to borrow $500.00 from his mother-in-law to pay his training costs and that her husband had died about a month before she loaned claimant this money.
On February 13, 1982, the referee affirmed the administrator's decision and, on April 13, 1982, the Board of Review disallowed claimant's appeal. Claimant then appealed to the Common Pleas Court.
Claimant obtained the services of Attorney Thomas W. Weeks of the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland.
By letter dated February 17, 1982, to the Board of Review, Attorney Weeks asked for a supplemental hearing before the referee to hear the testimony of the OBES worker who handled Mr. Edward's case, the person with whom claimant dealt at the school where he wanted to enroll and the U.A.W. counsellor who is familiar with claimant's case. By another letter dated March 3, 1982 to the Board of Review, Attorney Weeks pointed out that the referee did not consider whether the problems with Mr. Edwards' case resulted from errors made by OBES and enclosed a copy of the decision of Ruozzo v. Giles (1982), 6 Ohio App. 3d 8.
The first two assignments of error are as follows:
It is established in Ohio that estoppel does not apply against the State of Ohio as to a taxing statute. Recording Devices, Inc. v. Bowers (1963), 174 Ohio St. 518; H.C. Albring Co. v. Kosydar (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 343.
The syllabus of Ruozzo v. Giles (1982), 6 Ohio App. 3d 8, is as follows:
"The doctrine of equitable estoppel is applicable against the government when an agent of the government misinforms a person dealing with the government as to an existing right."
The Reporter's Note to the case states that a motion to certify the record of this case was overruled on June 2, 1982 (Case No. 82-539).
In the Ruozzo case, the appeal arose from a denial of claimant's application with the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services for extended Trade Readjustment Allowance because it was not filed within the established time period. Claimant contended, as to the time limit, that he had been "misinformed by a bureau employee." Thus, the factual situation in the Ruozzo case is similar to instant case.
Although the action of the Supreme Court in the Ruozzo case is not binding on this court as a matter of law, it does give this court some indication as to the present thinking of the members of the Ohio Supreme Court on subject issue.
Another panel of judges of this court had the identical issue before it in Solomon Dorsey v. Board of Review, Ohio Bureau of Employment Services, et al, Case No. 45523, decided June 2, 1983 (copy attached. In the Dorsey case, the court held that the question of equitable estoppel could be raised in the Dorsey case since the patent design and intent of the legislation was the provision of a remedial and humanitarian solution to the economic hardships of workers attendant upon the replacement of American products by foreign imports, such legislation must be liberally interpreted to effectuate its stated congressional purpose, citing Bonham v. Dressler Industries, Inc. (3d Cir.) (1978), 569 F. 2d 187, at 192-193.
However, in the Dorsey case, the court found that claimant had received information from his union as to the date when applicants had to file for additional benefits...
To continue reading
Request your trial