Przekaza v. Department of Employment Sec., 317-77
| Decision Date | 11 September 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 317-77,317-77 |
| Citation | 392 A.2d 421,136 Vt. 355 |
| Parties | Anton J. PRZEKAZA v. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Elliot M. Burg, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., Rutland, for plaintiff.
Michael F. Ryan, Montpelier, for defendant.
Before BARNEY, C. J., and DALEY, LARROW, BILLINGS and HILL, JJ.
The plaintiff appeals from a decision of the Vermont Employment Security Board disqualifying him from unemployment compensation benefits because he had voluntarily left his last employment without good cause attributable to his employing unit. 21 V.S.A. § 1344(a)(2)(A). The questions certified to this Court pursuant to V.R.A.P. 13(d) present the general issues of whether the evidence before the Board reasonably tends to support its findings and whether the findings in turn support the Board's conclusions and decision.
The Board made the following findings of fact. The plaintiff had been employed as a driver by the Rutland Mental Health Service, Inc. for nearly two years prior to his last day of work on June 10, 1977. On October 15, 1975, after he had been hired but before he began work, plaintiff was involved in an incident resulting in a driving while intoxicated charge. From the date of the incident until the date of his conviction and license revocation on June 7, 1977, he kept his supervisor informed of the status of the charge against him. Commencing on June 10, 1977, plaintiff went on leave status for two weeks during which period he sought unsuccessfully to have his license reinstated. Also during this period his employer drafted a letter of resignation and advised the plaintiff to sign it should his attempt to retain his license fail. Plaintiff initially refused to sign the letter but subsequently agreed when he was informed that his vacation pay would be withheld until he did so.
The Board concluded that the plaintiff left his last employment voluntarily without good cause "by voluntarily entering into conduct which resulted in losing his driver's license." We note that other jurisdictions have employed this rationale. We find, however, no reason to so construe our statute given its unambiguous statement of legislative policy that an individual shall be disqualified from unemployment compensation, pending compliance with a service requirement, in only three instances:
(1) Where he has left his last employer voluntarily without good cause attributable to such employing unit.
(2) Where he has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Department of Economic and Employment Development v. Taylor
...Lewis v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 39 Conn.Supp. 371, 465 A.2d 340 (1983); Przekaza v. Department of Employment Security, 136 Vt. 355, 392 A.2d 421 (1978). Each of these cases rejects the doctrine of constructive voluntary leaving, based on the clarity of the language of......
-
Yardville Supply Co. v. Board of Review, Dept. of Labor
...a blood test for intoxication held to have voluntarily left his employment without good cause). But see Przekaza v. Department of Employment Sec., 136 Vt. 355, 392 A.2d 421, 422 (1978) (chauffeur whose driver's license, a prerequisite of employment, revoked following his DWI arrest during a......
-
City of Clarksdale v. Mississippi Employment Sec. Com'n
...S.E.2d 875 (1989); Lewis v. Admin., Unemployment Compensation Act, 39 Conn.Supp. 371, 465 A.2d 340 (1983); Przekaza v. Dept. of Employment Sec., 136 Vt. 355, 392 A.2d 421 (1978); and Milwaukee County v. Dept. of Indus., Labor and Human Relations Comm'n, 80 Wis.2d 445, 259 N.W.2d 118 (1977).......
-
84 Hawai'i 407, Keanini v. Akiba
...v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 39 Conn.Supp. 371, 465 A.2d 340 (1983); and Vermont--Przekaza v. Department of Employment Sec., 136 Vt. 355, 392 A.2d 421 (1978).7 Under Hawai'i Administrative Rules (HAR) § 12-5-47(b), we would not be limited to subjective evidence of intent......