Ullrich v. Thorpe Elec.
Decision Date | 09 July 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 15524,15524 |
Citation | 109 Idaho 820,712 P.2d 521 |
Parties | Rayton F. ULLRICH, SSA 518 32 1025, Claimant-Respondent, v. THORPE ELECTRIC, Employer-Respondent, and State of Idaho, Department of Employment, Appellant. |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Jim Jones, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Sol.Gen., Roger T. Martindale(argued), and Larry Weeks(on brief), Deputy Attys.Gen., Boise, for appellantDept. of Employment.
Michael F. Peacock, Kellogg, for claimant-respondent.
This is an appeal by the State of Idaho, Department of Employment, from the Industrial Commission's decision awarding claimant unemployment compensation after claimant failed to accept an offer of employment.The issues concern the interpretation and application of I.C. § 72-1366(f) and (g), which pertain respectively to the eligibility requirement of willingness to accept suitable work, and to the statutory considerations for determining whether work is indeed suitable.We affirm the decision of the Industrial Commission, to the effect that while the work claimant offered was arguably suitable, nonetheless, claimant had good cause to reject it.
The facts of the case are as follows.Claimant worked as an electrician for the interested employer, Thorpe Electric, from February 1963 through February 1982, when he was laid off because the employer closed its business.Claimant was officially terminated on March 10, 1982.Members of the employer's family established a new corporation called Thorco, Inc. between February and March 1982, to carry on a business of the same nature as that which had been conducted by Thorpe Electric.Whereas Thorpe Electric had been a union shop, Thorco, Inc. had no hiring restrictions regarding union membership.Claimant had been a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, LocalNo. 73, for 25 years.
The new company, Thorco, informed claimant that it had some openings for jobs in claimant's line of work at wages comparable to what claimant had formerly been earning.The referee found, and the commission adopted as its own decision, the following facts:
Claimant filed an application for unemployment compensation immediately after he was laid off.He received benefits from February 13, 1982 through April 30, 1983.He filed a new claim for extended benefits on March 3, 1983, which claim the employer protested on the basis that claimant had refused an offer of suitable employment.On August 2, 1983, a claims examiner of the Department of Employment(DOE) determined that claimant had refused available work, but that he had done so for good cause and was therefore eligible for benefits.The employer appealed, and a DOE appeals examiner, reversing the claims examiner, held that claimant had refused suitable work without good cause and was ineligible for benefits.Claimant appealed.The Industrial Commission ruled that the fact of Thorco's being a non-union shop did not render the offered work unsuitable.The commission did not decide whether the work was suitable, feeling that such determination was unnecessary, since it held that claimant had good cause for refusing the employment.The DOE appeals.
The appellant DOE relies upon I.C. § 72-1366(f) and (g), as support for its position that claimant should not receive unemployment compensation.Those provisions stated, in pertinent part, as of the time of the job offer in February 1982:
(1) If the vacancy of the position offered is due directly to a strike, lockout, or other labor dispute;
(2) If the wages, hours, or other conditions of the work offered are substantially less favorable to the individual than those prevailing for similar work in the locality of the work offered;
(3) If, as a condition of being employed, the individual would be required to join a company union or to resign from or refrain from joining any bona fide labor organization.
* * *."
Subsection (f) of I.C. § 72-1366 was slightly amended in 1983, but that amendment is of no consequence to this case.
Clearly, the key terms in these statutes, for our purposes, are "good cause" and "suitable."These two terms are not necessarily coextensive; a claimant always has good cause to refuse work that is unsuitable, but one may also have good cause to refuse work that is suitable.Meyer v. Skyline Mobile Homes, 99 Idaho 754, 589 P.2d 89(1979).The fact that a labor union will impose sanctions upon a member who accepts a non-union job in the type of work covered by the union's bargain agreements does not render such work "unsuitable" under the statutory language of I.C. § 72-1366(g).Norman v. Employment Security Agency, 83 Idaho 1, 356 P.2d 913(1960)( ).Here, the commission found, under Norman, that the non-union character of the offered work did not make it unsuitable.It follows that, since the work was the same as the claimant had formerly done, the commission must have considered it to be suitable employment.We do not disturb the commission's treatment of the suitability question, but we find, as did the commission, that the outcome here rests upon the existence of good cause to decline the admittedly available work.
The Industrial Commission found that, had claimant accepted non-union work with Thorco, Inc., he would have been in violation of the union's constitution, would have been subject to fine, and would have lost his entitlement to certain pension benefits.The commission concluded:
In reaching this finding, the commission relied upon testimony of claimant and of a union representative, regarding probable sanctions that would be imposed by the union in the event that claimant accepted non-union work as an electrician.The commission did not abuse its discretion in so interpreting the evidence.The meaning of "good cause" within the statute is a factual determination to be made by the commission on a case-by-case basis.Berger v. Nez Perce Sheriff, 105 Idaho 555, 671 P.2d 468(1983);Ellis v. Northwest Fruit & Produce, 103 Idaho 821, 654 P.2d 914(1982);Saulls v. Employment Security Agency, 85 Idaho 212, 377 P.2d 789(1963).We will not overturn the commission's decision, where it is supported by substantial and competent, although conflicting, evidence.Horner v....
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Spruell v. Allied Meadows Corp.
...and competent evidence in the record. Burnside v. Gate City Steel Corp., 112 Idaho 1040, 739 P.2d 339 (1987); Ullrich v. Thorpe Elec., 109 Idaho 820, 712 P.2d 521 (1985); Booth v. City of Burley, 99 Idaho 229, 580 P.2d 75 (1978). As stated in Booth, we declined to "independently adopt findi......
-
Jensen v. Siemsen
...and competent evidence in the record. Burnside v. Gate City Steel Corp., 112 Idaho 1040, 739 P.2d 339 (1987); Ullrich v. Thorpe Elec., 109 Idaho 820, 712 P.2d 521 (1985); Booth v. City of Burley, 99 Idaho 229, 580 P.2d 75 (1978). As stated in Booth, we decline to "independently adopt findin......
-
O'Dell v. J.R. Simplot Co.
...by a claimant is "suitable" work, and also whether the claimant had "good cause" to refuse to accept such work. Ullrich v. Thorpe Electric, 109 Idaho 820, 712 P.2d 521 (1985); Plante v. Ken's Electric, 108 Idaho 809, 702 P.2d 847 (1985). As stated in Meyer v. Skyline Mobile Homes, 99 Idaho ......
-
Teevan v. Office of Attorney General, Natural Resources Div., State of Idaho, 22912
...issue if supported by substantial and competent evidence. Hart, 126 Idaho at 552, 887 P.2d at 1059 (citing Ullrich v. Thorpe Elec., 109 Idaho 820, 823, 712 P.2d 521, 524 (1985)). Although the Commission labeled the bulk of its Decision and Order "CONCLUSIONS OF LAW," the Commission actually......