Wailuku Sugar Co. v. Agsalud

• Decision Date: 16 July 1982
• Docket Number: No. 7965,7965
• Citation: 65 Haw. 146,648 P.2d 1107
• Parties: WAILUKU SUGAR COMPANY, Yukitana Ansai, and John Murray, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Joshua C. AGSALUD, Director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, State of Hawaii, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Page 1107

648 P.2d 1107

65 Haw. 146

WAILUKU SUGAR COMPANY, Yukitana Ansai, and John Murray, Jr. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Joshua C. AGSALUD, Director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, State of Hawaii, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 7965.

Supreme Court of Hawai'i.

July 16, 1982.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The standard on review of administrative findings of fact is whether they were clearly erroneous, i.e. whether the appellate court, in reviewing the record, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.

2. Under Title 19 U.S.C. § 2294, in determining who is an "adversely affected worker" entitled to receive worker adjustment assistance benefits under the Trade Reform Act of 1974, state law as to entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits is to be followed.

3. A worker who left his work voluntarily without good cause is not an "adversely affected worker" under the Trade Reform Act of 1974.

4. Leaving of work is considered to be for good cause when it is for a real, substantial or compelling reason or a reason which would cause a reasonable and prudent worker, genuinely and sincerely desirous of maintaining employment, to take similar action.

5. The phrase "without good cause" modifies and is in addition to the term "voluntarily."

6. Where some supervisory employees were to be released because of a reduction in the work force caused by the competition of foreign sugar, and the claimants, as supervisors, due to pressure and persuasion on the part of the employer and the circumstances, agreed to accept early retirement although they otherwise would not have retired, the referee's finding that they were not "adversely affected workers" was clearly erroneous.

Richard M. Rand and Ernest C. Moore, III, Honolulu, on the briefs (Torkildson, Katz, Jossem & Loden, Honolulu, of counsel), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Edward L. Correa, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., Dept. of Labor and Industrial Relations, Honolulu, on the brief, for defendant-appellee.

Before RICHARDSON, C. J., LUM, PADGETT and HAYASHI, JJ., and OGATA, Retired Justice, in place of NAKAMURA, J., recused.

PADGETT, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order by the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit affirming two decisions and orders entered by a referee of the Unemployment Compensation Division, Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, State of Hawaii, which determined that the individual appellants were ineligible for trade readjustment allowances under 19 U.S.C. § 2291. We reverse.

The individual appellants were supervisory employees of Wailuku Sugar Company, Limited. Because of the adverse effects of foreign sugar competition in late 1976, Wailuku Sugar Company determined to make a reduction in its work force. The following appears in the transcript of the testimony of Appellant Yukitaka Ansai before the referee:

Q. And at the time Mr. Bowman (Wailuku Sugar Company's manager) talked to you, how many-did he mention how many and who or what positions were going to be eliminated?

A. No. He just said supervisors with the sugar industry would be put out.

Q. How many?

A. He didn't specify how many.

Later on, he testified:

Q. Would they have then-what was the-well, it goes back to the discussion. What was the discussion? They had to what-why was the discussion held with you?

A. Because of the sugar crisis, he (apparently Solzen Yogi, the Industrial Relations man for Wailuku Sugar) said because sugar crisis and reduction of workforce and that they had to layoff so many laborers and so many percentage of supervisors also. So, because of my long years of service he say he didn't want to see the young ones be put out, see? I have the service already so if he offer me, you know, a good pension plan, what, how about taking it because the younger one have young wives and young children going to school yet.

Q. Did he go through all that discussion?

A. Yeah.

Q. That was his presentation?

A. Yeah.

Although his testimony is not consistent, at one point, Appellant John Murray, Jr., testified:

Q. So, what happens if you did not accept this offer?

A. Well, they said they kick ... either they kick me out or they let me out, either one, see?

Q. So, you had a choice then?

A. I had a choice, yeah.

Q. So, you could have stayed?

A. I could have stayed.

Q. So, as far as the discussion with you it was an optional part. It was a decision for you to make?

A. For me to make.

Q. Why is it that they called in both of you first?

A. We were the only ones that, well, is ready to retire, see?

Q. Okay. So, was there any discussion if you chose not to retire, what would be the consequence?

A. No, they never said anything. We didn't discuss anything about that.

The referee determined that the individual appellants did not qualify for the trade readjustment allowance.

The question presented to us is whether the finding of the referee is "clearly erroneous." Section 91-14(g)(5), HRS.

The standard to be applied is whether the finding was "clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record." DeFries v. Association of Owners, 57 Haw. 296, 555 P.2d 855 (1976). As we said in DeFries, supra, at 302, 555 P.2d 855:

Under the clearly erroneous standard, this court will reverse findings by the appeals board if this court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.

On February 28, 1977, a petition on behalf of workers and former workers producing sugar cane and raw sugar on the Wailuku Sugar Company plantation was filed with the Office of the Secretary of the United States Department of Labor in Washington, D. C. by the International Laborers and Warehousemen Union in accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 2272, to seek a formal certification from the Secretary of Labor, certifying that separated or partially separated employees of Wailuku Sugar Company were eligible to apply for worker adjustment assistance benefits under the provisions of 19 U.S.C. § 2291. On June 6, 1977, the Secretary of Labor certified that:

"All workers at the Wailuku Sugar Company ... who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 1, 1976 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2 of the Trade Act of 1974."

In order to be eligible for a trade readjustment allowance, an applicant must be an "adversely affected worker." Title 19 U.S.C. § 2319(2) provides:

The term "adversely affected worker" means an individual who, because of lack of work in adversely affected employment-

(A) has been totally or partially separated from such employment ...

19 U.S.C. § 2294 provides:

Except where inconsistent with the provisions of this part and subject to such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, the availability and disqualification provisions of the State law-

(1) under which an adversely affected worker is entitled to unemployment insurance (whether or not he has filed a claim for such insurance), or

(2) if he is not so entitled to unemployment insurance, of the State in which he was totally or partially separated,

shall apply to any such worker who files a claim for trade readjustment allowances....

Appellee's argument is that the individual appellants could have stayed on as employees of Wailuku Sugar Company despite the reduction in force but voluntarily accepted retirement and hence, would be disqualified from benefits under § 383-30, HRS, which provides:

Disqualification for benefits. An individual shall be disqualified from benefits:

(1) Voluntary separation. For any week in which he has left his work voluntarily without good cause, and continuing until he has, subsequent to the week in which the voluntary separation occurred, been employed for at least five consecutive weeks of employment....

The referee, in his decisions in the cases of both of the individual appellants, stated:

In determining whether the separation was due to lack of work, the usual question is whether or not the worker could have continued to work if he had elected to do so.

In this case, the employer used a number of ways to have claimant finally agree to retire. However, the employer and claimant agree that claimant could have continued to work had he elected not to retire.

The...