Zier v. Bureau of Unemployment Comp.

• Decision Date: 03 May 1948
• Parties: ZIER v. BUREAU OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

81 N.E.2d 129

ZIER
v.
BUREAU OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County.

May 3, 1948.

Appeal by Edward G. Zier from a decision of the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation denying appellant's claim for unemployment compensation. From a judgment dismissing the appeal, appellant appeals.-[Editorial Statement.]

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

[81 N.E.2d 129]

Sindell & Sindell, of Cleveland, for plaintiff-appellant.

R. E. McMonagle, of Cleveland, for defendant-appellee.

MORGAN, Judge.

The plaintiff appellant is a claimant for unemployment compensation. The common pleas court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff for the reason that The Thompson Aircraft Products Company for whom the plaintiff worked was not made a party defendant or appellee in the common pleas court and received no notice of the appeal.

The plaintiff was employed as a grinder by the Thompson Aircraft Products Company from April 14, 1942 to August 14, 1945 when he was let out. There was an initial determination for claimant, holding:

‘The original claim for benefits is therefore valid.’

The weekly benefit was fixed at $21.00 and the potential minimum benefits payable at $462.00.

On November 23, 1945, the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation determined that the claimant ‘refused work for which he was reasonably fitted at The Republic Steel Corporation. Benefit rights of claimant are suspended as of October 17, 1945.’ On March 8, 1946, the Secretary of the Board of Review sent a notice to both employer and employee that a hearing on the

[81 N.E.2d 130]

appeal of claimant from the decision of the Administrator would be held on March 25, 1946, at the hearing room, Seneca Bldg. Cleveland, Ohio. The Board of Review made a decision that ‘claimant refused to accept an offer to work for which he is reasonably fitted and * * * is ineligible for benefits. The decision of the administrator dated November 23, 1945, upon the initial determination of continued claim, is hereby affirmed.’

On Apr. 29, 1946, both the employer and the employee were notified that the claimant had filed an application for leave to file a further appeal before the Board of Review. On Aug. 19, 1946, the claimant was notified that ‘claimant's application to institute a further appeal should be and the same is hereby disallowed.’ This was signed by the three members of the Board of Review and by Amos I. Garrison, secretary. The claimant then filed a notice of appeal in the common pleas court...