Wellman v. Riley
| Decision Date | 28 June 1949 |
| Parties | WELLMAN v. RILEY, Com'r of Labor. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Reserved and transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Wescott, Judge.
Action by Harold B. Wellman against Wm. H. Riley, Commissioner of Labor, to recover unemployment compensation benefits. From a decision of the Appeal Tribunal of the Unemployment Compensation Division of the Bureau of Labor affirming a decision of a claims deputy denying compensation benefits, the plaintiff appealed to the superior court, and the appeal is reserved and transferred to the Supreme Court on agreed statement of facts.
Appeal dismissed.
Appeal to the Superior Court from a decision of the Appeal Tribunal of the Unemployment Compensation Division of the Bureau of Labor affirming a decision of a claims deputy of the Division, denying unemployment compensation benefits to the plaintiff for the week ending July 5, 1947, on the ground that he was not unemployed during that week within the meaning of the Unemployment Compensation Act. The appeal was reserved and transferred without ruling by Wescott, J., upon an agreed statement of facts.
From the statement it appears that the plaintiff was an employee of a division of Textron, Inc., who was laid off on June 6, 1947 for lack of work. He thereupon applied for benefits which were paid him for two weeks in June. On June 21 the employer posted notice that the mill would close from June 28 to July 7 for the annual vacation. On June 27 the plaintiff was paid $33.51 by check purporting to be wages for the vacation week ending July 5, 1947. The payment was carried on the employer's payroll as wages and was subject to social security and income tax deductions but not to check off. It exceeded the amount of the weekly benefit to which the plaintiff would be entitled in case of his total unemployment.
The notice given and the payment made by the employer conformed to provisions of its contract with a labor union of which the plaintiff was a member. The contract required the employer to give a vacation of one week, with pay amounting to 2% of the employee's total earnings during a specified 52 weeks. The vacation was to be given ‘at a time and in a manner to be determined by the Employer.’ The contract also provided that if the latter determined that it was impracticable to grant vacations, it might, after notice to the union, pay employees their vacation pay in lieu of vacation.
Guertin & Leahy, J. Russell Widener and Richard M. Ryan, Nashua, for plaintiff.
F. Maurice LaForce, Berlin, for defendant.
The issue to be determined upon the agreed facts is whether an employee who receives a vacation with pay during a layoff is entitled to unemployment compensation for the vacation period. Section 2 B(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Act, R.L., c. 218, as amended, provides that ‘each eligible individual who is totally unemployed in any week shall be paid with respect to such week benefits' specified in the section, which vary according to the individual's total earnings for the calendar year preceding the ‘benefit year’ from April to April.
‘Total unemployment’ is defined by section 1 N: ‘An individual shall be deemed ‘totally unemployed’ in any week with respect to which no wages are payable to him and during which he performs no services.' ‘Wages,’ according to section 1 P, ‘means every form of remuneration for personal services paid or payable * * * including salaries, commissions, bonuses * * *.’ It is thus apparent that if wages were payable to the plaintiff with respect to the week ending July 5, or if he performed services during that week, he was not ‘totally unemployed.’
The plaintiff makes no serious claim that the vacation pay which he received was not wages within the definition of the act; but he asserts that his right to benefits is determinable according to the definitions of ‘total unemployment’ found in subsection D of section 3 relating to ‘benefit eligibility conditions.’ By this definition, ‘an individual shall be deemed totally unemployed in any week in which he earns no wages in excess of three dollars'; and the plaintiff says that he did not ‘earn’ his vacation pay in the week in question.
The argument overlooks the express provision that the definition thus relied upon is ‘for the purposes of this subsection,’ and that the subsection pertains solely to the required waiting period of one week of total unemployment (as thus defined) which must precede the benefit week if the employee is to be an ‘eligible individual.’ In view of its limited application, the definition cannot be held controlling of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glover v. Simmons Co.
...Corp. v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, 119 Ind.App. 430, 88 N.E.2d 256 (App.Ct.1949). Cf. Wellman v. Riley, 95 N.H. 507, 67 A.2d 428 (Sup.Ct.1949). In the Wellman case, supra, the employee had also received vacation pay for the week for which he sought unemployment c......
-
Speagle v. U.S. Steel Corp.
...subd. D, as amended), and Mrs. Armstrong received a week's pay for part of this time, she had no compensable wage loss, Wellman v. Riley, 95 N.H. 507, 67 A.2d 428. Thus, in Golubski v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 171 Pa.Super. 634, 91 A.2d 315, 317, 30 A.L.R.2d 362, the court......
-
Vincent v. State
...would have been eligible for benefits had she been laid off directly from work with no intervening leave of absence. Wellman v. Riley, 95 N.H. 507, 67 A.2d 428 (1949). On the other hand, plaintiff does not and cannot claim benefits for the time she was on leave of absence. See id. The depar......
-
State v. Thayer, 78-046
...individuals regularly attached to the labor market which is not occasioned with their consent or by their fault." Wellman v. Riley, 95 N.H. 507, 510, 67 A.2d 428, 429 (1949). An unemployed worker may apply for benefits to the unemployment compensation board, and, if found eligible, the mone......