Phipps v. Boise Street Car Co.

Decision Date29 October 1940
Docket Number6761
Citation61 Idaho 740,107 P.2d 148
PartiesJESS PHIPPS, Appellant, v. BOISE STREET CAR COMPANY, Respondent
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAW-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-AMENDMENTS, CONSTRUCTION OF-INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT BOARD-FINDINGS OF FACT-CASE HEARD ON DEPOSITIONS-APPEAL.

1. Where a trial has been had upon depositions and trial court has not seen and heard witnesses appellate court is in as favorable position for judging of truthfulness of witnesses and weight of evidence as the trial judge, and in such case rule that appellate court will not disturb judgment where there is conflict in evidence does not apply.

2. The general principles of statutory construction apply to interpretation of constitutions.

3. In construing constitutional amendment providing that on appeal from orders of Industrial Accident Board court shall be limited to review of questions of law, it must be assumed that legislature in presenting and people in adopting the amendment were familiar with holdings of the Supreme Court that where a trial has been had upon depositions and trial court has not seen and heard witnesses appellate court is in as favorable position for judging of truthfulness of witnesses and weight of evidence as trial judge. (Const art. 5, sec. 9, see Sess. Laws 1937, p. 498.)

4. In construing constitutional amendment providing that on appeal from orders of Industrial Accident Board court shall be limited to review of questions of law, Supreme Court must presume that amendment contemplated the law as it had been announced by the Supreme Court. (Const., art. 5, sec. 9, see Sess. Laws, 1937, p. 498.)

5. When trier or triers of facts does not or do not hear and see the witnesses face to face, findings of such tribunal are not necessarily and ipso facto of any greater cogency than those of any other tribunal.

6. Where the reason of the law ceases the law itself also ceases.

7. Greater weight should not be given to findings of Industrial Accident Board under Unemployment Compensation Act than to those of a district court based only on written testimony and hence unless the board or majority thereof hears and sees the witnesses testify its findings are not conclusive on the Supreme Court, even under constitutional amendment providing that on appeal from orders of board court shall be limited to review of questions of law. (I. C. A secs. 11-303, 11-406, 30-1109, 43-1401, 61-1910; Sess. Laws 1935, 3d Ex. Sess., chap. 12, sec. 6; secs. 5, 11 (a), 14 (e), as amended by Sess. Laws, 1939, chap. 239, secs. 3, 5, 8; sec. 19 as amended by Sess. Laws, 1939, chap. 239, p. 577, sec. 13; Const., art. 5, sec. 9; Sess. Laws 1937, p. 498; Social Security Act, 42 U.S. C. A., sec. 301 et seq.)

8. Where Industrial Accident Board did not itself hear and determine claim for unemployment compensation but heard and determined claim on a transcript of evidence and proceedings had before the examiner, the Supreme Court was not bound by decision of board that discharged employee was guilty of such misconduct as to justify delay in payment of his unemployment compensation but Supreme Court would examine the record to determine whether evidence showed such misconduct. (I. C. A., secs. 11-303, 11-406, 30-1109, 43-1401, 61-1910; Sess. Laws, 1935, 3d Ex. Sess., chap. 12, sec. 6; secs. 5, 11 (a), 14 (e), as amended by Sess. Laws, 1939, chap. 239, secs. 3, 5, 8; sec. 19, as amended by Laws 1939, chap. 239, p. 577, sec. 13; Const., art. 5, sec. 9; see Sess. Laws, 1937, p. 498; Social Security Act, 42 U.S. C. A., sec. 301 et seq.)

APPEAL from the Industrial Accident Board.

Proceeding by Jess Phipps for unemployment compensation under the Unemployment Compensation Law. From a decision of the board, on review, claimant appeals. Reversed and Remanded with Directions.

Reversed and remanded with directions. Costs awarded to appellant.

E. B. Smith, for Appellant.

The Unemployment Compensation Law shall be interpreted to conform to the provisions thereof and the decisions of the courts thereon; such law must be liberally construed in favor of workmen employed in industry. (Unemployment Compensation Law, sec. 2 (a), (b), and sec. 11, sec. 102 (a), (b) and sec. 601; Taylor v. McSwain, 54 Ariz. 295, 95 Pac (2d) 415; Riggen v. Perkins, 42 Idaho 391, 246 P. 962; State Insurance Fund v. Hunt, 52 Idaho 639, 17 P.2d 354.)

Where there is no substantial conflict in the evidence such as to warrant a holding that the finding of the board must be upheld and, where the preponderance of the evidence is against the finding, there being no substantial evidence in support thereof, the decision of the board must be reversed. (Butler v. Anaconda Copper Min. Co., 46 Idaho 326, 268 P. 6; In re Larson, 48 Idaho 136, 279 P. 1087; In re Hillhouse, 46 Idaho 730, 271 P. 459; Jenkins v. Boise Payette Lbr. Co., 49 Idaho 24, 287 P. 202; Soran v. McKelvey, 57 Idaho 483, 67 P.2d 906; Pierstorff v. Gray's Auto Shop, 58 Idaho 438, 74 P.2d 171.)

J. M. Lampert, for Respondent.

The application for the word "misconduct" as used in the act appears to be the crux of the case.

"Misconduct.--wrong or improper conduct; unlawful behavior; synonyms, misbehavior, misdemeanor, delinquency, offense." (Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 5th ed.)

Misconduct has been defined and applied in various ways.

"As bad behavior--mismanagement--wrong conduct--delinquency." (Webster's International Dictionary; Bailey v. Examining etc. Bd. of Helena Police Dept., 45 Mont. 197, 122 P. 572; Coffey v. Superior Ct. of Sacramento County, 147 Cal. 525, 82 P. 75.)

Vestal P. Coffin, Amicus Curiae.

The Unemployment Compensation Administration Fund is a trust fund containing only moneys granted by the Federal Government to the Industrial Accident Board as administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Law, and this fund must be administered and disbursed strictly according to the terms, conditions, restrictions, and limitations, prescribed by the Social Security Act, the Wagner-Peyser Act, and rules and regulations in effect thereunder. (Title III, Social Security Act, U.S.C. A., Title 42, secs. 501 et seq.; Unemployment Compensation Law, sec. 13, 1939 Session Laws, 572; sec. 10, 1935 Session Laws, Third Extra Session, 37; Fiscal Instructions ES-501 Issued by Social Security Board and Judicially Noticed by this Court,--sec. 16-101, I. C. A.; Brief for Appellant on Questions Propounded by the Court--pp. 1-10.)

HOLDEN, J. Ailshie, C. J., Budge and Givens, JJ., concur. Morgan, J., did not sit at the hearing or participate in the decision.

OPINION

HOLDEN, J.

The Third Extraordinary Session of the Legislature (Sess. Laws 1935, chap. 12, printed in Sess. Laws 1937, p. 20) enacted an "Unemployment Compensation Law" for the purpose of securing for this state the maximum benefits of the Act of Congress, approved August 14, 1935, known as the "Social Security Act." February 5, 1939, and for approximately two years prior thereto, appellant was employed by respondent Boise Street Car Company, and in "covered employment" after the effective date of the unemployment compensation statute. February 6, 1939, he was discharged for alleged misconduct. February 14, 1939, Phipps filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits, alleging he had been discharged for union activities. March 15, 1939, a preliminary investigation of the alleged misconduct was had before Disqualification Deputy Honorable George R. Gochnour. The deputy found:

"A disqualification for the week in which he [Phipps] was discharged and for three additional weeks has been assessed against this claimant for misconduct in disregarding the rules of the company to inspect tires, wheels, and wheel lugs on every round trip.

"The contention of the claimant that he was fired because he joined the Union has not been proven by the information given us in his letter or the facts as contained in this claimant's folder."

From that decision Phipps prosecuted an appeal (as provided by rules adopted by the board) to the Examiner of the Unemployment Compensation Division of the Industrial Accident Board. June 19, 1939, the charge of misconduct was tried, on appeal, by the Examiner Honorable George O. Bradshaw. Witnesses were sworn and examined and their testimony taken in shorthand by an official reporter appointed and employed for the purpose of reporting proceedings before the examiner, the parties being represented by counsel. July 6, 1939, the examiner made "Findings of Fact" and "Determination," and then "ordered and determined" thereon that "the claimant [appellant] lost his employment through conditions that amounted to misconduct within the meaning of the Idaho Unemployment Compensation Law."

July 26, 1939, Phipps filed a "Claim for Review" (also as provided by rules adopted by the board), and on the same day the board gave the following notice to the respective parties:

"You, and each of you, will please take notice that Jess Phipps, the above named Worker, filed with the Industrial Accident Board of the State of Idaho a claim or Petition for Review of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision made by George O. Bradshaw, the Examiner of the Unemployment Compensation Division of the Industrial Accident Board, on the 6th day of July, 1939, in the above entitled matter, and you are hereby notified that the Industrial Accident Board of the State of Idaho will review said matter upon the records and files at Boise, Idaho, on the 7th day of August, 1939, at its offices in the Capitol at 10:00 A. M."

September 8, 1939, the board rendered its "Decision on Review." We quote the following:

"Pursuant to due notice, this matter came on for review of the findings of fact and decision by George O. Bradshaw, Examiner, filed herein on the 6th...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Idaho Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. Robison
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • December 15, 1944
    ... ... enacts the statute. ( State v. Fite , 29 Ida. 463, at ... 469, 159 P. 1183; Phipps v. Boise St. Car Co ., 61 ... Ida. 740, 107 P.2d 148; Morrison v. Cottonwood ... Development Co ... ( Fletcher v ... Gifford , 20 Ida. 18, at 26, 115 P. 824; Phipps v ... Boise Street Car Co ., supra; Zancanelli v. Central ... Coal & Coke Co ., 25 Wyo. 511, 173 P. 981; People v ... ...
  • Keenan v. Price
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1948
    ... ... James ... H. Hawley and R. W. Beckwith, both of Boise, for plaintiff in ... The ... question proposed by Senate Joint Resolution No. 1 was not ... of statutory construction apply to the interpretation of ... constitutions ( Phipps v. Boise Street Car Co., 61 ... Idaho 740, at page 747, 107 P.2d 148), and also to ... ...
  • Curtis v. Siebrand Bros. Circus & Carnival Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • May 6, 1948
    ... ... instance." ... And, ... further, in Boise Flying Service v. General Motors ... Acceptance Corporation, 55 Idaho 5, 9, 36 P.2d 813, 814, ... John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Girard, 57 Idaho ... 198, 64 P.2d 254; Phipps v. Boise Street Car Co., 61 ... Idaho 740, 107 P.2d 148 ... Nevertheless, ... it is ... ...
  • Small v. Jacklin Seed Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • May 29, 1985
    ...is beyond my ken. Equally beyond my ken is what possessed the Court in Booth, supra, to gratuitously overrule Phipps v. Boise Street Car Co., 61 Idaho 740, 107 P.2d 148 (1940). Phipps, as applicable here, had been the law in Idaho almost since the day Idaho enacted unemployment compensation......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT