John Morrell & Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Commission

• Decision Date: 13 March 1944
• Docket Number: 8647.
• Parties: JOHN MORRELL & CO. v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

13 N.W.2d 498

69 S.D. 618

JOHN MORRELL & CO. v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al.

No. 8647.

Supreme Court of South Dakota

March 13, 1944

Geo. T. Mickelson, Atty. Gen., and Alan Williamson Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants.

Boyce Warren & Fairbank and John S. Murphy, all of Sioux Falls for respondent.

ROBERTS Judge.

This is a case arising under the Unemployment Compensation Law (SDC 17.08). Leona P. Whealey was the employee and claimant for unemployment benefits. There were decisions by the Deputy Commissioner granting such benefits and by the Appeal Tribunal and by the Unemployment Compensation Commission sustaining the allowance. Upon review by the Commission findings were made as follows: "Claimant is a married woman whose employment with John Morrell and Company began July 11, 1938 and continued until March 26, 1941. On that date claimant resigned due to her advanced pregnancy. The birth of the child occurred on July 19, 1941. After fully recovering from her confinement claimant made such arrangements for the care of the child during her working hours to permit her to return to work, applied for reinstatement to her former position or for other suitable work. Upon her failure to be reinstated to her former position or any other, she registered for employment with the Employment Service office at Sioux Falls and simultaneously applied for benefits. At the time of her separation, March 26, 1941, claimant's physical condition, due to pregnancy, was such that continuing to work endangered her health, and the separation was necessitated by her approaching confinement." The employer, John Morrell and Company, then proceeded to obtain a review of such decision in the Circuit Court of Minnehaha County. The court held that claimant left her employment voluntarily without good cause attributable to the employer or the employment and entered judgment reversing the decision of the Commission and directing that the amount of all benefits paid to claimant be credited to the reserve account of the employer. From the judgment of the Circuit Court, the Unemployment Compensation Commission and claimant appeal.

SDC 17.0830(1), as amended by Laws 1939, c. 89, read as follows: "An unemployed individual who has left work voluntarily without good cause, if so found by the Commission, shall not be entitled to any benefits under this chapter on account of such employment."

The facts involved in this controversy arose prior to the effective date (July 1, 1943) of Ch. 84, Laws 1943, amending the provisions quoted by specifically providing that an unemployed person who quits work "voluntarily without good cause, attributable to the employer or the employment," is not entitled to benefits.

It is agreed that the sole question involved is whether or not claimant was disqualified for benefits within the contemplation of these provisions.

The Unemployment Compensation Law was enacted by Ch. 3, Laws Sp.Sess.1936. The second section of the act as an aid in construing it contained a statement of public policy with respect to unemployment and the purposes of the legislature in providing for unemployment benefits. It declared: "Economic insecurity due to unemployment is a serious menace to the health, morals, and welfare of the people of this State. Involuntary unemployment is therefore a subject of general interest and concern which requires appropriate action by the legislature to prevent its spread and to lighten its burden which now so often falls with crushing force upon the unemployed worker and his family. The achievement of social security requires protection against this greatest hazard of our economic life. This can be provided by encouraging employers to provide more stable employment and by the systematic accumulation of funds during periods of employment to provide benefits for periods of unemployment, thus maintaining purchasing power and limiting the serious social consequences of poor relief assistance. The legislature, therefore, declares that in its considered judgment the public good, and the general welfare of the citizens of this State require the enactment of this measure, under the police powers of the State, for the compulsory setting aside of unemployment reserves to be used for the benefit of persons unemployed through no fault of their own."

The legislature recognizing the ills resulting from involuntary unemployment sought to encourage more stable employment and to maintain purchasing power during periods of unemployment and to minimize the social consequences...