Kelly v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act
Decision Date | 07 March 1950 |
Citation | 136 Conn. 482,72 A.2d 54 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | KELLY et al. v. ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT, et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
James F. Rosen, New Haven, with whom was Norman Zolot, Bridgeport, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
Harry Silverstone, Assistant Attorney General, with whom, on the brief, was William L. Hadden, Attorney General, for the appellee (defendant).
Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, DICKENSON and BALDWIN, JJ.
The plaintiffs in this case are employees of the High Standard Manufacturing Corporation a subject employer under the Unemployment Compensation Act, Rev.1949, § 7495 et seq. and work in one of the corporation's plants on Dixwell Avenue in Hamden. They seek to recover unemployment compensation for the work week in which July 4 fell, during which the employer shut down its plant in order, so it claimed, that the employees might have a vacation. On January 5, 1948, the corporation entered into an agreement with a labor union representing the plaintiffs. This agreement contained the following provisions: The plaintiffs were all continuously in the employ of the corporation from sometime before the week ending November 29, 1947, until after November 30, 1948.
On April 27, 1948, the company gave notice that it had
On July 2, 1948, the plaintiffs were given unemployment notices. The reason set forth therein was that there would be a vacation shutdown for the work week in which July 4 fell. Each plaintiff received, on July 21, 1948, a check from the company for a sum figured at 4 per cent of his gross pay for the period between December 16, 1947, and the end of the last full calendar week of May, 1948, and on December 20, 1948, a similar check for the period between the end of the last full calendar week in May and the end of the last full calendar week in November, 1948. Each of these payments approximated $50, a sum in excess of the individual's weekly unemployment benefit rate. During the period July 2 to July 12, 1948, the plaintiffs registered for work at the state employment service and filed claims for unemployment benefits. In November, 1948, the administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act disapproved the claims for the reason that the plaintiffs as employees had received vacation ay as compensation for loss of wages. General Statutes, § 7508. The plaintiffs appealed from that ruling. The commissioner reversed the administrator and awarded unemployment benefits. From this ruling the company appealed to the Superior Court, which in turn reversed the commissioner. The plaintiffs have appealed to this court.
Benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Act are payable 'only to individuals who are unemployed and are eligible for benefits.' General Statutes, § 7500; see §§ 7501, 7502. One may be in the employ of another even though for the time being one is on vacation. Gutzwiller v. American Tobacco Co., 97 Vt. 281, 284, 122 A. 586; see Dauber's Case, 151 Pa.Super. 293, 296, 30 A.2d 214. Webster's New International Dictionary (2d Ed.) defines vacation as In the case before us a vacation was provided for in the contract of employment between the union acting for the plaintiffs and the defendant employer. The employer had the power under the contract to designate the week in which July 4 fell as a vacation period and to shut down its plant and cease work. The plaintiffs' term of service had not come to an end; activity had only been temporarily suspended. The plaintiffs had employment to which they...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Glover v. Simmons Co.
...v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 175 Pa.Super. 402, 105 A.2d 176 (Super.Ct. 1954); Kelly v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 136 Conn. 482, 72 A.2d 54 (Sup.Ct.Err.1950). This viewpoint encompasses the assumption that the rate of pay for working hours includes a por......
-
Fulco v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp.
...153 Conn. 691, 693, 220 A.2d 284 (1966); Conon v. Administrator, 142 Conn. 236, 245, 113 A.2d 354 (1955); Kelly v. Administrator, 136 Conn. 482, 487, 72 A.2d 54 (1950). Further, it is significant that the legislature chose not to amend the statutory definition of "wages" set forth in § 31-7......
-
Gilliam v. California Employment Stabilization Commission
...which under the Minnesota act disqualified the employee from receiving unemployment compensation. In Kelly v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 1950, 136 Conn. 482, 72 A.2d 54, the contract provided for vacations with pay to be taken at a time to be arranged between the employer......
-
Cervantes v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act
...he is out of work through no fault or act of his own; Schettino v. Administrator, supra, 138 Conn. 257, 83 A.2d 317; Kelly v. Administrator, 136 Conn. 482, 487, 72 A.2d 54; and its provisions are to be construed liberally as regards beneficiaries in order that it may accomplish its purpose.......