Taminski v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act

• Decision Date: 15 April 1975
• Parties: Charles TAMINSKI v. ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT, et al.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

Page 868

362 A.2d 868

168 Conn. 324

Charles TAMINSKI v. ADMINISTRATOR, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT, et al.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

April 15, 1975.

Norman Fineberg, New Haven, for appellant (defendant Griffin hospital).

Thomas J. Daley, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom, on the brief, was Robert K. Killian, Atty. Gen., and Donald E. Wasik, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee (named defendant).

Before HOUSE, C.J., and LOISELLE, MacDONALD, BOGDANSKI and LONGO, JJ.

LONGO, Associate Justice.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff's former employer, Griffin Hospital, from a judgment of the Superior Court in Litchfield County dismissing its appeal from a decision of the unemployment compensation commissioner for the fifth district awarding unemployment benefits to the plaintiff employee.

The record discloses the following facts: The plaintiff had been employed by the defendant Griffin Hospital from June 18, 1969, through February 19, 1971, and was later employed by another employer, Sun Chief, for a period of six months ending April 14, 1972. He left his job with Sun Chief for lack of transportation and applied for unemployment benefits which were awarded to him. Subsequently, when his benefit payments terminated, the plaintiff filed a new claim for benefits as of June 4, 1972. By combining the wages earned from his two different employers, Griffin Hospital and Sun Chief, the commissioner decided that the plaintiff had sufficient earnings in at least two quarters of his 1971 base period which qualified him for additional benefits.

The statute applicable to this situation, General Statutes § 31-235, provided ¹ in pertinent part as follows: 'An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if it has been found that . . . (3) he has been paid wages by an employer who was subject to the provisions of this chapter during the base period of his current benefit year in an amount at least equal to thirty times his benefit rate for the total unemployment, some part of which amount has been paid or was earned in at least two different calendar quarters of such base period.' (Emphasis added.)

In appeals of this nature the court cannot substitute its discretion for that legally vested in the commissioner but determines on the record whether there is a logical and rational basis for the decision of the commissioner or whether, in the light of the evidence, he has acted illedgally or in abuse of his discretion. Bartlett v. Administrator, 142 Conn. 497, 505, 115 A.2d 671; Stapleton v. Administrator, 142 Conn. 160, 165, 112 A.2d 211; Lanyon v. Administrator, 139 Conn. 20, 28, 89 A.2d 558.

The defendant hospital contends that the plain wording of the statute permits wages paid only by 'an,' meaning 'one,' employer subject to the act to be considered in determining an employee's eligibility to receive benefits. Under this interpretation, the plaintiff would not have qualified for benefits since he was not paid sufficient wages by one employer in two different quarters of his base period as required by § 31-235(3). The basic issue, then, is whether wages paid by more than one employer in the qualifying period can be combined in determining an employee's eligibility for unemployment benefits.

The trial court, in dismissing the defendant hospital's appeal, cited § 1-1(f) of the General Statutes, which provides that '(w)ords importing the singular number may extend and be applied to several persons or things, and words importing the plural number may include the singular.' The defendant hospital claims that this section, being permissive in nature, should be applied only where there is no rational ground for restricting or extending the express wording of a statute; Levine v. Randolph Corporation, 150 Conn. 232, 241, 188 A.2d 59; and claims further that, in considering the Unemployment Compensation Act as a whole, there is a rational basis for limiting the word 'an' as used in § 31-235(3) to its meaning of 'one.'

The legislative enactments prior to and subsequent to the enactment of § 31-235(3) do not support the limited interpretation placed upon the statute by the defendant hospital. ² General Statutes § 7507(3) (Rev.1949) provided for eligibility to an employee if he were found to have 'been paid wages during the base period of his current benefit year.' Clearly, the statute, which was the forerunner of § 31-235, merely prescribes the period of time when wages must have been paid to an employee but does not limit the number of employers who are required to pay the wages. In 1953, § 7507 was amended to require that wages be paid 'by an employer who was subject to the provision of . . . (chapter 374).' Again, the statute merely qualifies or limits the payment of wages determining...