University of Toledo v. Heiny

• Decision Date: 20 May 1987
• Docket Number: No. 86-1149,86-1149
• Citation: 30 Ohio St.3d 143,507 N.E.2d 1130,30 OBR 454
• Parties: , 39 Ed. Law Rep. 302, 30 O.B.R. 454 UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO, Appellee, v. HEINY; Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Employment Services, et al., Appellants.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 143

30 Ohio St.3d 143

507 N.E.2d 1130, 39 Ed. Law Rep. 302, 30 O.B.R. 454

UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO, Appellee, v. HEINY; Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Employment Services, et al., Appellants.

No. 86-1149.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

May 20, 1987.

Syllabus by the Court

R.C. 4141.29(I)(1)(b) denies unemployment benefits for the period during the summer months to employees of educational institutions who work in other than instructional, research or principal administrative capacities, when such employees are given reasonable assurance in the current academic year that employment is available for the following academic year.

This cause arises as a result of the filing of an application for unemployment benefits by claimant, Betty L. Heiny, in June 1984. Heiny has been employed by the appellee, University of Toledo, as a part-time shuttle bus driver since September 1970. During such employment, Heiny and other drivers have operated the shuttle system from the beginning of the fall quarter in late September through the end of the Spring quarter in mid-June. While approximately thirty-five drivers are needed through the fall, winter and spring quarters, only five or six college work-study students operate the shuttle system in the summer quarter because the activities and enrollment at the school are drastically reduced.

On May 21, 1984, Heiny received an interoffice memorandum from appellee's Work Control Department which stated:

"This is a reminder that, as in prior years, your last day of work as a part-time shuttle bus driver (SOC 113) for this academic year will be Friday, June 15, 1984.

"We will expect you to report to work again for the 1984/85 academic year, beginning with open registration for fall quarter on Thursday, September 20, 1984 at 8:00 a.m."

Heiny notified appellee that she was willing to work the summer quarter and then filed her application for unemployment benefits for the week ending June 23, 1984. On July 11, 1984, appellant Administrator of the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services denied Heiny's request for benefits.

The administrator's decision was affirmed in a decision on reconsideration dated August 8, 1984, which stated in part: " * * * [C]laimant was separated by [the] University of Toledo due to lack of work on June 15, 1984, the end of the academic year or term and * * * claimant had a contract or reasonable assurance of employment with an educational institution or an institution of higher education in a nonprofessional capacity for the next academic year or term. Claim for the week ending June 23, 1984 was disallowed as a waiting week because it was a week of unemployment which began during the period between two successive academic years or terms." Heiny then appealed to appellant, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (hereinafter "the board"). An evidentiary hearing was held on September 4, 1984, before a referee for the board. On September 10, 1984, the referee determined that Heiny was eligible for benefits. An application to institute a further appeal before the full board was filed by appellee but was disallowed.

The matter was timely appealed by appellee to the court of common pleas, which affirmed the decision of the board. The court of appeals held that Heiny was not entitled to benefits and reversed the decision of the trial court.

The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Spengler, Nathanson, Heyman, McCarthy & Durfee and James P. Triona, Toledo, for appellee.

Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., Patrick A. Devine and John F. Kozlowski, Columbus, for appellants.

LOCHER, Justice.

The issue presented in this action is whether the claimant was entitled to unemployment benefits. We hold in the negative.

The resolution of this controversy rests upon an interpretation of R.C. 4141.29(I)(1)(b). This section provides:

"Benefits based on service for an educational institution or an institution of higher education in other than an instructional, research, or principal administrative capacity, shall not be paid to any individual for any week of unemployment which begins during the period between two successive academic years or terms of the employing educational institution or institution of higher education provided the individual performed such services for the educational institution or institution of higher education during the first such academic year or term and, there is a reasonable assurance that such individual will perform such services for any educational institution or institution of higher education in the second of such academic years or terms." ¹ (Emphasis added.)

Specifically, we must determine the intent of the legislature in its use of the phrase "academic years or terms" within the overall context of the statute.

Appellants argue in support of the interpretation given by the board in its decision. The board determined that " * * * the claimant's benefits are based on service for an educational institution--an institution of higher education and that she was employed in a position other than an instructional, research or principal administrative capacity. The facts further show that the week ending June 23, 1984, was a week which began between two successive academic terms. The claimant did not receive any reasonable assurance that she would be performing work services for any educational institution during the summer quarter. Thus, the claimant had no reasonable assurance that she would be performing such services for any educational institution in the second of such academic terms. * * * Therefore, the claimant has fulfilled all of the eligibility requirements for filing a valid weekly claim for benefits, and the claim for the week ending June 23, 1984 must be allowed." The trial court upheld this determination, finding that it was not unlawful, unreasonable or against the manifest weight of the evidence pursuant to R.C. 4141.28(O).

We recognize that " * * * it is well-settled that courts, when interpreting statutes, must give due deference to an administrative interpretation formulated by an agency * * *." State, ex rel. McLean, v. Indus. Comm. (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 90, 92, 25 OBR 141, 143, 495 N.E.2d 370, 372. However, when an agency's interpretation is unreasonable and thwarts the intent of the legislature, it must be overturned.

We find the interpretation of R.C. 4141.29(I)(1)(b) espoused by the court of appeals to be the proper interpretation and reject the interpretation of the board as unreasonable and unlawful.

Unemployment compensation legislation has been enacted to benefit teachers and non-instructional employees of educational institutions whose employment has terminated at the end of an academic year and whose employment prospects for the ensuing academic year are doubtful. It surely was not enacted to "subsidize the vacation periods of those who know well in advance that they may be laid off for certain specified periods." Davis v. Commonwealth (1978), 39 Pa.Commw. 146, 147, 394 A.2d 1320, 1321. " 'In effect what the * * * [employee] in this case [is] requesting is that the government should provide * * * [her] with a...