Ritchey v. Iowa Employment Sec. Commission

• Decision Date: 27 March 1974
• Docket Number: No. 2--56162,2--56162
• Citation: 216 N.W.2d 580
• Parties: Michael K. RITCHEY, Appellee, v. IOWA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 580

216 N.W.2d 580

Michael K. RITCHEY, Appellee, v. IOWA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION, Appellant.

No. 2--56162.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 27, 1974.

Rehearing Denied May 16, 1974.

Walter F. Maley and Blair H. Dewey, Des Moines, for appellant.

Nash & Eller, Denison, for appellee.

Heard before MOORE, C.J., and MASON, LeGRAND, UHLENHOPP and REYNOLDSON, JJ.

UHLENHOPP, Justice.

This appeal turns on a finding of fact by the Iowa Employment Security Commission.

To be eligible for unemployment compensation, an unemployed individual must be 'earnestly and actively seeking work' and the Employment Security Commission must find that he 'has registered for work at and thereafter has continued to report at an employment office in accordance with such regulations as the commission may prescribe.' Code 1973, § 96.4(1) and (3). Under this statute, the commission promulgated and the legislative rules committee approved rule 3.1(1)(a), (b), and (c), requiring a claimant to file his claim and register for work at the office most accessible to him and then to continue to file claims in person or by mail at such intervals as prescribed by a commission representatives. Unemployment compensation is paid weekly. Claimants are furnished claim forms to file weekly, on which they must state whether they worked during the preceding week and must name the employers from whom they sought work that week. If a claim form is not thus filed for a given week, compensation is not paid for that week, except that the commission may for good cause accept a claim up to seven days late. 1973 I.D.R. 257.

Claimant Michael K. Ritchey worked for Rasmussen Lumber Company and then for Marvin's Provisions, Inc. Later he had an opportunity to return to Rasmussen for better wages. One noon he quit Marvin's without notifying the manager and went back to Rasmussen. Still later he was laid off by Rasmussen. Marvin's had work for claimant but, perhaps feeling embarrassed about the circumstances of his leaving that employer, claimant did not reapply for work there. Instead, on January 30, 1972, he filed a claim for unemployment compensation. He was given the claim forms to file weekly, and he did fill out and file them for the weeks of February 5 and 12, 1972.

Since claimant's benefits were chargeable proportionately against Rasmussen's and Marvin's accounts, the commission notified those employers of the claim. Marvin's objected in writing to the claim on the ground that Marvin's did not lay claimant off: 'This man checked out before lunch and did not return. He did not notify anyone he was leaving or why. I (Marvin C. Rehbein) definitely feel that we have no liability in this case.' This objection temporarily held up payment of the claim and set the wheels in motion for a fact-finding interview of claimant and of Marvin's followed by a ruling by a claims deputy on Marvin's objection. See summary of commission procedure in Note, 35 Iowa L.Rev. 79. Claimant and Marvin's were notified that the interview would be held on February 24, 1972, at the employment office in Caroll, Iowa. Claimant did not attend the interview for asserted reasons which we will presently state. A representative of Marvin's telephoned in and found that claimant had not appeared; hence no one from Marvin's attended. The commission interviewer sent his report to the commission marked, 'Neither party appeared for statement.'

Claimant ceased filing claims and reporting to the employment office. On May 18, 1972, a commission claims deputy overruled Marvin's objection and held that although claimant voluntarily quit at Marvin's, claimant was nevertheless eligible for benefits because after he quit he earned more than nine times his weekly benefit amount, which washed out his 'voluntary quit' under § 96.5(1)(g) of the statute. The commission so notified claimant and Marvin's. That notice precipatated two administrative proceedings.

On May 19, 1972, Marvin's appealed from the claims deputy's decision to a commission hearing officer. In its appeal Marvin's stated that claimant 'should be disqualified because if he had been actively and earnestly seeking employment he would have applied here. We could have used him and there would have been no need for him to apply for compensation.' The legal basis for Marvin's appeal, however, was that claimant voluntarily quit. See § 96.5(1), supra. After a hearing, the hearing officer affirmed the claims deputy's ruling under the same provision cited by the claims deputy, § 96.5(1)(g), and Marvin's appealed no further. The first of the two administrative proceedings ended at that point.

The other administrative proceeding began on June 29, 1972. Claimant could not of course retroactively report for work for the weeks he did not report. But on June 29, 1972, he submitted weekly claim forms requesting payment of benefits retroactively for the weeks from February 19 through May 20, 1972. He also filed a paper in which he asserted that he did not attend the interview of February 24 because of illness but sent his wife, that someone at the employment office told his wife claimant was ineligible because Marvin's was objecting and claimant would not be able to draw benefits, that the person at the employment office said he 'would check into it and notify me,' and that claimant therefore no longer reported to the employment office weekly or filed the weekly claim forms.

Subsequently a claims deputy denied claimant's request for payment of benefits retroactively. Claimant appealed to a hearing officer.

A hearing on notice was held on August 4, 1972, at the Carroll employment office. Claimant was represented by counsel. The principal fact question at the hearing was whether the assertions in the paper claimant filed were true. Unfortunately, no one with personal knowledge testified on August 4. Claimant did not present his wife as a witness; he was unable to say who the commission representative was his wife allegedly talked to; the hearing officer tried to ascertain who that representative was but was unable to find such a person; and no one could testify from Marvin's since no one from there attended the interview which was to have been held on February 24.

Claimant himself was the only witness on August 4. He testified as to what his wife allegedly told him someone at the employment office told her. The commission accepts hearsay testimony for what it may be worth. See Code 1973, § 96.6(6).

Claimant testified he received notice of the February 24 interview. He further testified:

And I was sick at the time and I didn't want to miss it, so I had my wife come over. And when she came over and talked to them, they told her here that I had been disqualified and wouldn't be eligible for unemployment. . . .

Well, she come home, and she said that the reason I had gotten the letter is because I had quit Marvin and walked off the job, and that he was fighting it and that I was ineligible to draw unemployment because I quit. . . .

Q. All right, now then did your wife tell you when she came home and said you'd be disqualified, that you did not any longer need to send in those cards on a weekly basis? A. No, sir, she just said that I had been disqualified and wasn't eligible to draw unemployment.

Q. And is this the reason, then, that you discontinued sending in your cards? A. Yes, sir.

Following claimant's testimony, the hearing officer and claimant's counsel engaged in a colloquy in which claimant's counsel stated:

Well, just speculating, my guess is that he probably told her what is, you know, properly--the law, and then she probably just simply misunderstood it. It happens, you know, all the time in law offices. And as a result she went home and just misrelayed information to her husband. This is my guess as what happened.

After the hearing, the hearing officer considered the testimony and found that claimant had not established a commission representative told claimant's wife claimant was disqualified and would not be eligible for benefits. The hearing officer therefore denied the late claims under § 96.4(1) of the Code and rule 3.1(1)(a) and (b) of the commission.

Claimant appealed to the commissioners of the commission, who reviewed the case and unanimously affirmed the hearing officer's finding and ruling. Claimant then appealed to district court, which reversed the commissioners' decision and allowed the late claims. The commission appealed to this court.

In this court the commission asserts the district court erred (1) in allowing the late claims (2) in adding interest to them and (3) in directing payment of the benefits jointly to claimant and his counsel. At the bar, claimant admitted the second and third assigned errors, and so we do not consider them. We proceed, therefore, to the first assigned error--the merits of the controversy.

The merits present two questions. As a factual matter, did the trial court err in overturning the commission's finding claimant failed to establish his contention of fact that a commission...