Kalin v. Oliver Iron Min. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 April 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 34783.,34783. |
| Citation | 37 N.W.2d 365,228 Minn. 328 |
| Parties | KALIN et al. v. OLIVER IRON MIN. CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Certiorari to review a decision of the director of the division of employment and security holding that claimants failed to file valid claims for unemployment benefits.
During 1947, relators, herein designated as the claimants, were and had for some years been employes of respondent, Oliver Iron Mining Company. Respondent followed a known and established policy of retiring employes at the end of the month in which they reached the age of 65 years. Anticipating their retirements, claimants each filed with the division's local office at Virginia, Minnesota, an initial claim for unemployment benefits while still employed by respondent and some months prior to the month in which each would attain his 65th year. Notations were made on each claimant's application card and initial claim for benefits that the claimant was filing his claim for the purpose of freezing his wage credits.
Pursuant to M.S.A. § 268.10, the chief of the division's benefit section, as the director's deputy, determined these initial claims for unemployment benefits to be valid, subject to the right of protest and appeal by the base period employer. Respondent appealed to the division's appeal tribunal, which found that claimants had all failed to file valid claims. Claimants then appealed to the director of the division, who affirmed the tribunal's decision.
The question is whether a valid initial claim for benefits under the Minnesota employment and security law may be filed by an individual who, at the time of filing, is regularly and continuously employed but who anticipates that he will be separated from his employment some months in the future.
The determination of this question depends upon the purpose and meaning of the 1945 amendment included in M.S.A. 1945, § 268.04. L.1945, c. 376, § 1. Prior to the 1945 amendment, the present § 268.04, subd. 24, read:
"`Valid claim' with respect to any individual means a claim filed by an unemployed individual who has registered for work and who has earned wage credits during his base period sufficient to entitle him to benefits under [Mason St.] Section 4337-25B." (Italics supplied.) Section 4337-25B is now § 268.07, subd. 2.
The 1945 amendment deleted the word unemployed. Clearly, prior to 1945, a valid claim could only be filed by an individual when he was actually unemployed. Claimants contend that the deletion of the word unemployed makes it possible for an individual to file an initial valid claim for unemployment benefits while he is still regularly and continuously employed but who anticipates that he will be retired on a date some months in the future, and thereby determine and freeze his benefit year, his base period, the weekly benefit amount, and the maximum benefit to which he is entitled, for the admitted purpose of making two benefit years available without the necessity of having at least four weeks of employment in the third and fourth calendar quarters of the base period for the second benefit year as required by § 268.07, subd. 3. Respondent contends, on the other hand, that an initial claim so filed is not valid and that the legislature by deleting the word unemployed intended only to eliminate a delay or lag period in the determination of whether a claimant is unemployed within the statutory meaning of § 268.04, subds. 23 and 27. Subd. 23 provides that an individual shall be deemed unemployed only if he be without work, or if he earn less than his weekly benefit amount, and subd. 27 defines a week to mean a calendar week ending at midnight of a Saturday. By reason of these definitions, it was not possible, prior to the 1945 amendment, to determine in many instances if a claimant was unemployed within the statutory meaning until after midnight of the second Saturday following the day upon which he filed his initial claim, and as a result determinations were delayed as much as 13 days.
1. In the ascertainment of the legislative intent, every law should be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions. § 645.16. There is a presumption that the legislature intends the entire statute to be effective and certain. § 645.17(2). In the light of these rules, § 268.04, subd. 24, through the 1945 amendment, by deletion of the word unemployed, is to be construed, not in isolation from, but in conjunction with other related sections of the Minnesota Employment and Security Act. We turn first to § 268.07, subd. 3, which was amended at the same 1945 legislative session to prevent individuals from using wage credits earned during the base period of one benefit year for benefit purposes in a subsequent benefit year unless, in addition thereto, such individual has earned wage credits in any part of the third and fourth quarters of the base period upon which the benefits for such subsequent benefit year are based in an amount equivalent to at least four times his current weekly benefit amount. Clearly, this latter amendment was intended to forestall the possibility of an individual being able, fortuitously or otherwise, to collect benefits in two succeeding benefit years on only one separation from employment. If the claimants are permitted to file a valid claim for benefits two months or more before they are separated from their employment and thus freeze the benefit year, two benefit years will be available to them without having at least four weeks of employment in the third and fourth quarters of the base period for the second benefit year. If effect...
To continue reading
Request your trial