Putnam v. Department of Employment Sec.
| Decision Date | 30 November 1961 |
| Citation | 175 A.2d 519,103 N.H. 495 |
| Parties | Grace D. PUTNAM v. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
William D. Tribble, and David J. KillKelley, Jaffrey, for plaintiff.
James M. Riley, Jr., and Edward F. Smith, Concord, for defendant Department of Employment Security.
Sulloway, Hollis, Godfrey & Soden, Concord, James B. Godfrey, Concord, for defendant Sylvania Electric Products, Inc.
The issue in this case is whether the Department of Employment Security was justified in ruling that the plaintiff employee was disqualified to receive unemployment compensation benefits because she voluntarily left her employment due to lack of transportation from her home to her place of employment. The employee emphasizes that she left her employment in good faith and without fault on her part, and therefore her termination of employment was in effect involuntary rather than voluntary. This argument may have merit in theory and has been approved under the provisions of some unemployment compensation acts. Kempfer, Disqualifications for Voluntary Leaving and Misconduct, 55 Yale L.J. 147, 155 (1945). However, we are necessarily limited in our review of this decision by the provisions of the Unemployment Compensation Law of this state and the regulations promulgated thereunder which are more stric than exist in other jurisdictions.
RSA 282:4, subd. A (supp) provides that an employee is disqualified for benefits for a stated period if he 'has left his work voluntarily without good cause in accordance with rules and regulations of the director.' If the statute merely provided that the disqualification was limited to the situation where the employee left her work voluntarily without good cause she might well be entitled to prevail in this situation. See Mass.G.L.Ann. ch. 151A, § 25(e), Laws 1958, c. 677, which changed the phrase 'without good cause attributable to the employing unit' to 'without good cause.' See 5 Annual Survey of Mass.Laws 166, 167 (1958). But as was pointed out in Nashua Corporation v. Brown, 99 N.H. 205, 108 A.2d 52, the regulation is an integral part of the statute and restricts the scope of the statute. The regulation by its terms states that a 'voluntary quit' without good cause exists when the employment is terminated for a reason 'which is not attributable to the employer.' Nashua Corporation v. Brown, supra, at 207, 108 A.2d at 53.
The loss of the plaintiff employee's transportation in this case may be considered a good personal cause for leaving but it cannot be considered a cause that is connected with or attributable to the employer. Konter v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 148 Ohio St. 614, 76 N.E.2d 611; Teple, Disqualification:...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harris v. Daniels, 78-41
...attributable to the employer do not apply, as it might if the limitation "were without good cause". See Putnam v. Department of Employment Security, 103 N.H. 495, 175 A.2d 519 (1961). What constitutes good cause is usually a question of fact within the province of the Board of Review. Brink......
-
Self v. Board of Review
...217 A.2d 203 (Me.1966); Hill v. Contract Beverages, Inc., 307 Minn. 356, 240 N.W.2d 314, 316 (1976); Putnam v. Department of Employment Sec., 103 N.H. 495, 175 A.2d 519 (1962); Moya v. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 80 N.M. 39, 450 P.2d 925, 926 (1969). Cf. Zorrero v. Unemployment Ins. Apps. Bd., ......
-
Vincent v. State
... ... Smith, Concord, and Andre J. Barbeau, N.H. Department of Employment Security, Concord, for the defendant New Hampshire ... in accordance with rules and regulations of the commissioner.' Putnam v. Dep't of Employment Security, 103 N.H. 495, 175 A.2d ... 519 [113 N.H ... of Rev., 205 Kan. 279, 469 P.2d 263 (1970); see Michigan Employment Sec. Comm'n v. Vulcan Forging Co., 375 Mich. 374, 134 N.W.2d 749 (1965) ... ...
-
Moya v. Employment Sec. Commission
...supra; Kontner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 148 Ohio St. 614, 76 N.E.2d 611, 615; Putnam v. Dept. of Employment Security, 103 N.H. 495, 175 A.2d 519; Mohler v. Dept. of Labor, 409 Ill. 79, 97 N.E.2d 762, 24 A.L.R.2d 1393; Morgan v. Board of Review, 77 N.J.Super. 209, 185 A.......