Nurmi v. Vermont Employment Sec. Bd.
Decision Date | 03 December 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 1178,1178 |
Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Parties | Beverly B. NURMI et al. v. VERMONT EMPLOYMENT SECURITY BOARD and H. Margolin & Company, Inc. |
John S. Burgess, Brattleboro, for plaintiffs.
Raymond S. Fitzpatrick, Barre, for defendants.
Before HULBURD, C. J., and HOLDEN, SHANGRAW, BARNEY and SMITH, JJ.
This is an unemployment compensation case. The defendants have appealed from a decision of the Brattleboro Municipal Court pursuant to the provisions of 12 V.S.A. § 2382.
There are nine claimants, but the basic facts as to all nine are being treated as if there was but one appeal. The municipal court so treated the matter below and made but one decision applicable to all claimants.
The Principal Claims Examiner for the Vermont Unemployment Compensation Commission (now Vermont Employment Security Board) found against claimants who were seeking benefits, after having been laid off by their employer, H. Margolin & Company, Inc. An appeal was taken to the Referee with the same result. The claimants then appealed to the commission from the decision of the Referee. The decision of the Referee, sustaining the decision of the Principal Claims Examiner, was affirmed by the commission and the claims denied.
The claimants then filed a Notice of Appeal and Petition of Review with the Brattleboro Municipal Court under the provisions of 21 V.S.A. § 1353. Hearing was held thereon, and upon facts agreed upon by the parties, the court issued its findings and judgment order reversing the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Commission, and entered judgment for the claimants. From this decision appeals were taken by the Vermont Employment Security Board, and by H. Margolin & Company Inc. as the last employer of the claimants.
At the outset we are confronted with a motion by the claimants to dismiss the appeals. The principal target of the motion is the failure on the part of the Vermont Employment Security Board to pay the Supreme Court entry fee referred to in 32 V.S.A. § 1431(1). This provides: 'For each action entered in the county court, court of chancery or supreme Court, $5.00, which shall be paid before the entry of the cause;' 32 V.S.A. § 1432 likewise provides for the payment of entry fees to the judge of a municipal court for the benefit of the state.
By virtue of No. 29, of the Acts of 1961, 32 V.S.A. § 1431, as well as § 1432, were qualified by the addition of 32 V.S.A. § 1432a which reads:
Under § 1432a the Vermont Employment Security Board was not required to pay an entry fee on its appeal to this Court.
From the motion it may be assumed that the employer failed to pay the Supreme Court entry fee. This was not necessary. By virtue of 12 V.S.A. § 2382 the filing of the appeal by the security board permitted either or any of the parties in the case to proceed on appeal.
The decision of the Brattleboro Municipal Court was handed down January 30, 1963, and notwithstanding the timely appeals taken, certification was not received by the clerk of the general term until May 24, 1963. The claimants assert in their motion to dismiss a violation of Supreme Court rules 5 and 8. These rules relate to a hearing of cases before this Court, and time for the filing of briefs. In consideration of the circumstances present, and as a matter of discretion, these grounds do not require favorable action on the motion. The motion to dismiss is denied.
In order to afford a bird's-eye view of the factual situation, and issues presented, we quote in part from the findings and decision of the Brattleboro Municipal Court.
'The counsel agreed and the court finds that all conditions of eligibility for unemployment compensation as specified in section 1343 are met by the claimants, except that as to the requirement of subsection (3) that they be 'available for work,' the employer and the commission contend that the claimants' inability to accept daytime work renders them not available within the meaning of this subsection.
The court below held 'that the claimants were available for work notwithstanding the restriction they placed upon the hours they would accept employment, and that they had good cause to refuse an offer of suitable work during the hours they were required by domestic conditions to spend at home.' In each case the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Commission was reversed, and judgment entered for the claimant.
The precise question presented is whether or not the claimants, with child-care or other similar domestic problems, can restrict their hours of employment and still remain 'available for work' under the provisions of 21 V.S.A. § 1343(3).
Section 1343(3) provides that an unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits if 'He is able to work, and is available for work;' Under section 1344(3), an individual shall be disqualified for benefits, 'If the commission finds that he has failed, without good cause, either to apply for available, suitable work when so directed by the employment office or the commissioner or to accept suitable work when offered him, * * *.'
Subsection A of section 1344(3) sets forth factors to be considered by the commissioner in evaluating the suitability of the work. This reads:
'(A) In determining whether or not any work is suitable for an individual, the commission shall consider the degree of risk involved to his health, safety and morals, his physical fitness and prior training, his experience and prior earnings, his length of unemployment and prospects for securing local work in his customary occupation, and the distance of the available work from his residence.'
The purpose of unemployment compensation statutes is to compensate for lack of appropriate job vacancies, thereby relieving distress resulting from unemployment and subsequent economic insecurity. The act is intended to assist unemployed persons who, under the limitations and conditions imposed by the legislature, are entitled to its benefits. This court is not at liberty to read into the statute provisions which the legislature did not see fit to incorporate, nor may it enlarge the scope of its provisions by an unwarranted interpretation of the language used. Ford Motor Co. v. Appeal Board of Michigan Unemployment Compensation Commission, 316 Mich. 468, 25 N.W.2d 586.
The phrase 'available for work' is not defined in the statute. The availability requirement is said to be satisfied, '* * * when an individual is willing, able and ready to accpet suitable work which he does not have good cause to refuse, that is, when he is genuinely attached to the labor market.' Roukey v. Riley, 96 N.H. 351, 352, 77 A.2d 30, 31. See Freemen, Able to Work and Available for Work, (1945) 55 Yale Law Journal, 123, 124.
The availability requirement, under the statute, was discussed in the case of Willard v. Unemployment Comp. Comm., 122 Vt. 398, 173 A.2d 843. At pages 404 and 405 of 122 Vt., at page 848 of 173 A.2d this court stated:
In referring to the 'suitability' of the work the municipal court made the following observation in its findings:
This leads us to the ultimate question,--that is,--whether these claimants had ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Lapham
...change the result previously reached, and the entry order is not affected. Motion for reargument denied. See Nurmi v. Employment Security Board, 124 Vt. 42, 50, 197 A.2d 483 (1963). 1 (State:) "Q. Did he tell you that she got nasty?(Dr. Brown:) A: Yes, sir.Q: And he told you that he became ......
-
Longe v. Boise Cascade Corp., 98-384.
...its provisions by an unwarranted interpretation of the language used.'" Id. at 281, 336 A.2d at 174 (quoting Nurmi v. Employment Sec. Bd., 124 Vt. 42, 46, 197 A.2d 483, 486 (1963) (overruled on other grounds)). See also Pate, 124 Vt. at 124, 197 A.2d at 797-98 ("The burden placed upon the e......
-
Watson, In re, 438
...our decision in the Miller case. Another group of cases relied upon by the appellee-employer is illustrated by Nurmi v. Vermont Employment Security Board, 124 Vt. 42, 197 A.2d 483. There, women previously employed on the night shift were laid off when that shift was discontinued. They were ......
-
Barcomb, In re, 113-73
...jobs which could meet those conditions. In Re Platt, 130 Vt. 329, 333, 292 A.2d 822 (1972). We held in Nurmi v. Vermont Employment Security Board, 124 Vt. 42, 47, 197 A.2d 483 (1963), that to be entitled to unemployment compensation, unemployed persons declining work must do so for good cau......