Tube Reducing Corp.. v. Unemployment Comp. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 20 January 1948
• Docket Number: No. 273.,273.
• Citation: 136 N.J.L. 410,56 A.2d 596
• Parties: TUBE REDUCING CORPORATION v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

136 N.J.L. 410

56 A.2d 596

TUBE REDUCING CORPORATION

v.UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al.

No. 273.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Jan. 20, 1948.

Proceeding by Tube Reducing Corporation, a corporation of the State of Delaware, against Unemployment Compensation Commission of the State of New Jersey, Board of Review of the Unemployment Compensation Commission of the State of New Jersey, and Vito J. Carlucci to compel a refund of unemployment compensation paid. On appeal, the Board of Review affirmed a decision of the appeal tribunal refusing to compel the refund. To review the decision of the Board of Review, the Tube Reducing Corporation brings certiorari.

Reversed and remanded.

October term, 1947, before DONGES, COLIE and EASTWOOD, JJ.

Winne & Banta, of Hackensack (Horace F. Banta, of Hackensack, of counsel), for prosecutor.

Charles A. Malloy, of Trenton (Herman D. Ringle, of New Brunswick, of counsel), for Commission.

Clarence F. McGovern, of Jersey City, for Board of Review.

Rothbard, Harris & Oxfeld, of Newark (Samuel L. Rothbard, of Newark, of counsel), for defendant Carlucci.

COLIE, Justice.

Vito J. Carlucci, an employee of Tube Reducing Corporation, filed on August 23, 1945 an initial claim for benefits under the provisions of the Unemployment Compensation Law, R.S. 43:21-1 et seq., N.J.S.A., stating therein that the reason for unemployment was ‘lack of work.’ Within a short time after the filing of the initial claim and prior to the payment of any benefits thereunder, Carlucci was recalled to work by the employer. At about this time, the employer and the union of which Carlucci was a member were attempting to negotiate a new contract of employment. On September 28, 1945 the negotiations broke down, the employees ceased work and a picket line was established in which Carlucci served from time to time. Three days later, the employer addressed a letter to the United States Employment Service, directed to the attention of the Unemployment Compensation Commission, advising in that certain of its named employees, among whom Carlucci was one, had gone out on strike. Thereafter Carlucci went to the office of the Commission and signed a form entitled ‘Continued Claim for Benefits' wherein he claimed benefits for the period from September 29th to October 8, 1945. The form in part reads: ‘2. I am unemployed, able to work and available for work; 3. I have not refused to work nor failed to apply for work when so directed.’ At the bottom is a legend reading: ‘I sign this statement with full knowledge that the law provides for a fine of $50.00 for false statements to obtain benefits.’ Seven like claims were filed covering the period up to November 26, 1945. What happened when the first of the series of continued claims was filed is best given in Carlucci's own words:

‘Q. When you reported for the week ending October 5, or 4 rather, did you tell them that you were out on strike? A. You mean when I went down the Unemployment?

‘Q. That's right. A. Well, when I went down the Unemployment, all I did was walk up to the girl there and she says to me, are you working, and I says no. That's the only question she asked me.

‘Q. Didn't you know that while a place is on strike or a possibility of a strike, you're not entitled to any benefits? A. Well, as I said before, I didn't know whether there was a strike or not.

‘Q. Well, what do you think? A. We were told it was a lockout and our union representative told us that we had-we could go down and apply for our unemployment compensation.’

In the aggregate, unemployment benefits totalling $186 were paid. Thereafter the Commission wrote Carlucci that he was disqualified for benefits because the stoppage of work was due to a labor dispute and it made demand upon him for repayment of the benefits received by him. This holding was then reviewed by the Appeal Tribunal which rendered a decision on November 14, 1946 holding that ‘as the claimant did not receive his benefits by reason of such misrepresentation or nondisclosure but in spite of the information fully disclosed by the employer on October 1, 1946, (meaning 1945) there is no liability for refund and the question of whether the claimant was in fact eligible or disqualified, therefore, becomes an academic one and need not be determined as pertinent to this issue’ there was ‘no liability for repayment of benefits' and reversed the decision of the deputy.

Tube Reducing Corporation then took an appeal to the Board of Review which affirmed the decisions of the Appeal Tribunal, whereupon it was allowed a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Board of Review.

The underlying public policy behind the enactment of the Unemployment Compensation Act is stated in R.S. 45:21-2, N.J.S.A., and restated in W. T. Grant Co. v. Board of Review, 129 N.J.L. 402, 29 A.2d 858. That policy is to protect against involuntary unemployment. R.S. 43:21-4, N.J.S.A., sets forth with particularity the conditions that an unemployed individual must meet in order to be eligible for benefits. The following section R.S....