Wagstaff v. Director of Division of Employment Sec.

• Decision Date: 03 May 1948
• Citation: 79 N.E.2d 3,322 Mass. 664
• Parties: JOHN S. WAGSTAFF v. DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

322 Mass. 664

79 N.E.2d 3

JOHN S. WAGSTAFF v. DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Plymouth.

May 3, 1948

April 8, 1948.

Present: QUA, C.

J., DOLAN, RONAN WILKINS, & SPALDING, JJ.

Employment Security. District Court, Review respecting employment security.

Upon a review by a District Court of a decision of the board of review in the division of employment security under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c 151A,

Section 42, as appearing in St. 1943, c. 534, Section 6, as amended findings by the board which were supported by certain portions of conflicting evidence must stand and the court had no power to make contrary findings nor a decision resulting therefrom on the ground that such contrary findings were required by the evidence "worthy of credence" under the statute the board was the sole judge of the credibility and weight of the evidence.

PETITION, filed in the Second District Court of Plymouth on May 17, 1947, for review of a decision of the board of review in the division of employment security.

The case was heard by Kalus, J.

S. Gurvitz, Assistant Attorney General, & J.

A. Brennan, for the respondent, submitted a brief.

No argument nor brief for the petitioner.

WILKINS, J. This is an appeal by the respondent from a decree of a District Court, which reversed a decision of the board of review in the division of employment security in the department of labor and industries denying unemployment benefits under the employment security law. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 151A, as appearing in St. 1941, c. 685, Section 1, as amended.

The director determined the claim to be invalid for the reason that the claimant "Left employment voluntarily without good cause attributable to the employing unit or its agent." G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 151A, Section 25 (e) (1), as appearing in St. 1941, c. 685, Section 1. Upon review, an examiner made a similar finding, the determination was affirmed, and benefits were denied. The board of review denied the claimant's application for further review. The decision of the examiner thereupon became the decision of the board of review. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 151A, Section 41, as appearing in St. 1941, c. 685, Section 1. The claimant caused the case to be certified to the District Court.

Proceedings in the District Court and appeal from that court directly to this court are under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 151A, Section 42, as appearing in St. 1943, c. 534, Section 6, as amended by St. 1947, c. 434, which provides: "In any proceeding under this section the findings of the board of review as to the facts, if supported by any evidence, shall be conclusive, and the court shall render a decision or decree in accordance with such findings." This is a narrower scope of review than is commonly open upon an appeal. See Ott v. Board of Registration in Medicine, 276 Mass. 566, 571. But questions of law are reviewable in the District Court and here. Pacific Mills v. Director of the Division of Employment Security, ante, 345, 346.

The review examiner in his "findings of fact and reasons for decision" stated that the claimant testified that he worked for the Pickard Company of Brockton for approximately a month; that he took the job on a trial basis to learn the oil burner installation business; that due to lack of orders and material he was not doing as much oil burner installation as he had hoped; that during his spare time he did laboring whitewashing, cement mixing, plumbing, and steamfitting, for which he received $1.37 1/2 an hour whenever he performed that work. The examiner further stated that there was submitted a statement signed by the treasurer of the employing unit which said that the claimant called him on the telephone on the evening of November 21, 1946, and said he wanted his pay raised from $1 to $1.37 1/2 an hour; that he informed the claimant that he would have to think it over, which he did and decided that the claimant was not worth $15 a week more; that on the following Monday the claimant did not appear for work; and that on December 24, 1946, the claimant saw the treasurer and asked for a letter showing that he had been laid off for lack of materials, which was refused. In his "conclusion" the examiner stated, "It must have been apparent to the claimant that the employing unit was a small concern and that oil burners were not in abundance at the time he took the job. The contention of the claimant that he took the job on a trial basis does not seem to be borne out in the light of the fact that he continued to work for a month after finding out that the burner installations were held up for lack of materials. It appears to this review examiner that the claimant was dissatisfied with conditions in general and a contributing factor was the refusal of the...