Nashua Corp. v. Brown

• Decision Date: 30 September 1954
• Citation: 99 N.H. 205,108 A.2d 52
• Parties: NASHUA CORPORATION v. Newell BROWN, Director of Division of Employment Security, et al.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 52

108 A.2d 52

99 N.H. 205

NASHUA CORPORATION v. Newell BROWN, Director of Division of Employment Security, et al.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Argued Sept. 7, 1954.

Decided Sept. 30, 1954.

Hamblett, Moran & Hamblett, Robert Hamblett, Nashua,) for plaintiff.

James M. Riley, Jr., Winslow H. Osborne and Edward F. Smith, Concord, for defendants.

The claimant filed no brief.

KENISON, Chief Justice.

The question presented here is whether a wife who leaves her employment to join her husband in another state in a newly established home is entitled to unemployment compensation benefits. The pertinent part of the governing statute provides that the claimant shall be disqualified for benefits for a specified period after she has left her work 'voluntarily without good cause in accordance with rules and regulations of the commissioner'. R.L. c. 218, § 4, subd. A, as amended by Laws 1947, c. 59, § 12. The applicable regulation, which is quoted in full in the statement of facts, provides that an individual 'left his work voluntarily without good cause' if it was 'for a reason not attributable to the employer.'

One of the original and primary purposes of our unemployment compensation law was to provide some measure of relief against involuntary unemployment. Goings v. Riley, 98 N.H. 93, 96, 95 A.2d 137. See Laws 1935, c. 99, preamble, 'Not every case of unemployment entitles an unemployed person to benefits.' Wellman v. Riley, 95 N.H. 507, 510, 67 A.2d 428, 429. The decisions which have considered the question which is presented in this case have not been unanimous in their holdings. Riesenfeld and Maxwell, Modern Social Legislation, 565 (1950). Although it has been suggested that the various differences in the decisions can be explained on the grounds of strict statutory interpretation or liberal statutory interpretation, annotation 13 A.L.R.2d 875, 876, it seems more likely that the conflict in the cases can be more accurately accounted for by the differences in the statutes and the regulations promulgated thereunder.

Some states have a specific statutory provision which disqualifies a spouse who removes from her place of employment for marital or domestic reasons. Moore v. Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, 73 Ohio App. 362, 56 N.E.2d 520; Farloo v. Champion Spark Plug Co., 145 Ohio St. 263, 61 N.E.2d 313; Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Board of Review, etc., 413 Ill. 37, 107 N.E.2d 832. Within recent years such a statutory provision has appeared more frequently. 1950 Annual Survey of American Law, 249. See Pa.Pamphlet Laws 1953, Act. No. 396, 43 P.S. § 802. No such provision appears in the New Hampshire statute. But even in the absence of such a provision it has been held that the spouse is disqualified from receiving benefits. Woodman of World Life Ins. Soc. v. Olsen, 141 Neb. 776, 4 N.W.2d 923.

In those states where the statute provides that the 'good cause' for leaving one's employment must be a cause connected with that employment, compensation has been denied. Ex parte Alabama Textile Products Corp., 242 Ala. 609, 7 So.2d 303, 141 A.L.R. 87; Huiet v. Schwob Mfg. Co., 196 Ga. 855, 27 S.E.2d 743. The unemployment compensation decisions in this state have attempted to avoid the extremes of strict or liberal statutory interpretation. 'The statute is to be construed as written having in mind its evident purpose whether the end result is considered by some to be economically good or bad.' Auclair Transportation Co. v. Riley, 96 N.H. 1, 3, 69 A.2d 861, 836.

While our statute, R.L. c. 218, § 4-A, as amended by Laws 1947, c. 59, § 12, disqualifies only for voluntary leaving without restricting it to good cause attributable to the employer, the regulation of the commissioner specifically relates the disqualification to reasons which are not attributable to the employer. In other words the regulation provides in effect that the voluntary quit by the employee must have some connection with or relation to...