Muraski v. Bd. Of Review Of Unemployment Comp. Comm'n
| Decision Date | 23 January 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 256.,256. |
| Citation | 56 A.2d 713,136 N.J.L. 472 |
| Parties | MURASKI v. BOARD OF REVIEW OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari proceeding by Walter V. Muraski to review a judgment of the Board of Review of the Unemployment Compensation Commission holding prosecutor ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits.
Writ dismissed.
May term 1947, before BODINE, HEHER and WACHENFELD, JJ.
Lawrence Friedman, of Newark, for prosecutor.
Clarence F. McGovern, of Jersey City, for defendant Board of Review.
Certiorari was granted to review the judgment of the Board of Review of the Unemployment Compensation Commission holding that prosecutor was ineligible for benefits under Section 4(c) of the Unemployment Compensation Act, as amended by c. 114 of the Laws of 1941, Pamph.L. 257, which provides that an individual totally or partially unemployed shall be eligible to receive such benefits only if it appears that ‘(c) He is able to work, and is available for work.’ R.S. 43:21-4(c), as amended, N.J.S.A. This conclusion was made to rest upon the finding that although the claimant asserts a readiness and willingness to work, he ‘has withdrawn his services in that occupation in which he was able to earn the wage he feels he must have and brings to the labor market insufficient experience in the newer type of work he seeks to enable him to command that figure,’ and so he ‘is not available for work within the meaning of the law.’
The insistence is that there is no factual basis for the finding, and that by force of R.S. 43:21-5(c), as amended, N.J.S.A., the ineligibility arises only when the claimant has ‘failed to apply for work when directed to do so, or has refused work offered to him.’ The point is not well made.
The claimant commenced work with the employer in 1939 as a laborer, at a wage rate of 65 cents per hour. In 1944, because of physical disability which, he contends, made outdoor service inadvisable, he was given work in the employer's office as a general clerk-timekeeper. When his employment ceased on December 13, 1945, his wage rate in this capacity was $1 per hour. There was no further need for his services as a clerk-timekeeper; and the employment terminated because of his refusal to accept an assignment to outdoor work. This course was taken, he said, for reasons of health. Thereupon, he registered for work in the Federal employment office, and made the present claim for unemployment benefits. But he made no effort during the winter to secure employment and for three months (from April 11, 1946) he worked outdoors daily for six or seven hours, painting his house; and he testified that he had determined to take only ‘an office job’ with a minimum rate of pay of $1 per hour, or ‘around that,’ but there was no work of that type available, except at a weekly wage ranging from $28 to $35. And he spurned such employment because he feared that its acceptance would deny him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krauss v. A. & M. Karagheusian, Inc., A--507
...exist independently of honest and reasonable intentions. Cf. W. T. Grant Co. v. Board of Review, supra; Muraski v. Board of Review of U.C.C., 136 N.J.L. 472, 56 A.2d 713 (Sup.Ct.1948). Assuredly it must be made to appear that the claimant has been and continues to be 'actively seeking work'......
-
Campbell Soup Co. v. Board of Review, Division of Employment Sec., Dept. of Labor & Industry
...workman is able, willing and ready to accept suitable work which he does not have good cause to refuse. Muraski v. Board of Review of U.C.C., 136 N.J.L. 472, 56 A.2d 713 (Sup.Ct.1948); Valenti v. Board of Review of U.C.C. of N.J., supra. There are no proofs as to these However, inasmuch as ......
-
George A. Hormel and Co. v. Hair, 87-793
...to accept suitable work which he does not have good cause to refuse and is genuinely attached to the labor market. Muraski v. Board of Review, supra [56 A.2d 713 (N.J.) ]; Reger v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 132 Conn. 647, 46 A.2d This does not mean necessarily that there......
-
Worsnop v. Board of Review, Division of Employment Sec., Dept. of Labor and Industry
...suitable work--he cannot restrict his availability for work to a particular employer or a particular job. Muraski v. Board of Review, 136 N.J.L. 472, 56 A.2d 713 (Sup.Ct.1948). In the instant case the evidence shows that Worsnop intended to return to his ship when necessary repairs thereto ......