*1 larger or resulting in motional activities allowances, discounts disproportionate
more with the necessarily meet
or rebates would readily ap- (approval). It
same fate point allowances
parent that at some bring magnitude would
must reach a provided for prohibitions
them within the in the Com- (102).” concur
in Section We It suffices to
mission’s of the matter. view promotional
say that in this instance the expected reasonably could be
allowances every customer
produce ultimate benefits to excessive, fairly shown to be
and were
disproportionate, unjustly unreasonable meaning of the
discriminatory within the
statute.
Appeal denied.
Sarah W. TOOTHAKER
MAINE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COM-
MISSION and Semi- Fairchild conductor Division.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Feb. *2 interpretation requires: (1) case disqualification for “voluntarily without un- employment”
cause attributable I,1 (2) R.S.1954, der fact application of the statute *3 caused the by travel disability induced employment. regular her claimant to leave said: presiding In his decree Justice Ap- of the findings of fact “That the majority Tribunal, adopted by peal supported are of the Commission the evidence. majority decision
“That the left Claimant the commission voluntarily employment regular her to such attributable good cause without meaning of Sec- employment within Auburn, plaintiff. Webber, for Curtis G. Security Employment 15-1 of the volun- was her and that Law Gen., Bradford, Atty. Asst. Milton L. аttributable tary without Augusta, for defendants. meaning of employer, within sup- Law, are Section 17—111 WILLIAMSON, TAP- J., and C. Before are ported by evidence and correct MARDEN, RUDMAN, LEY, and DU- applications interpretations FRESNE, JJ. law.” reads Appeal Tribunal The decision WILLIAMSON, Chief Justice. part: Superior appeal This from a decree of the claimant, woman married “The sustaining Court of the Maine decision old, employedas a cookie lаst years Employment Security disquali- employer Commission for this packer. worked She appellant fying the from week, obliged and was about one Employment Security under the Law is de- because the constant leave this R.S.1954, (now nied. c. 29 26 M.R.S.A. She much for her. standing was too § seq.) 1041 et previously worked in an electronics Disqualification 1. “See. 15. frequent, is less if the com- for "benefits. disqualified —An mission, disqualification individual be shall shall benefits: times tinue until clаimant has earned 15 Voluntarily weekly I. leavés work. For In no event his benefit amount. period subsequent unemployment disqualification voluntarily leav- shall having retired, having reg- ing regular or left his be avoided employment voluntarily periods ular without of other unless such employment, cause to such other continued shall have respect (1955, with to a female claimant who § full c. weeks: voluntarily marry, has or to left work c. 345. c. 341. c. perform сustomary 4)” (now of a house- duties 26 M.R.S.A. wife, 1). By period or to leave the locale to live amendment 1965 the husband, changed her or to a claimant who has and a voluntarily removed himself la- for illness and added. presently employed bor market where § 13. employment opportunity an where area Security Comm., Employment al. v. Maine May until about six weeks plant for 494, 114 150 Me. A.2d 359. separated. she when an as- “Occupationally сlassified purpose of the filed (electronics), the claimant sembler provide is to insurance Law effective for benefits initial claim plan against unemployment. The is not weekly benefit her May provide in designed to health accident amount $31.00. The claimant for benefits must be surance. qualified. eligible both primary her stated “The claimant plant electronics reason part Eligibility rests in on attach used She involved. the travel ment to the labor market evidenced week, then travelled one car own wages period by ability earned in a base It following week. a friend *4 availability Disqualifica to and for work. miles from 80 of travel involved 15, tions for benefits under in addi Section her for much too became day, it and a voluntarily work, tion to leaving briefly as back a weak has She physically. stated, misconduct, discharge include The ago. time fall sоme of a result accept refusal suitable stoppage hour, an receiving $1.30 was claimant arising of work under certain conditions involved felt and she because a dispute, receipt of labor of cer worth- were pay received types tain remuneration, of appli fraud in while.” cation for acceptance benefits, of ****** discharge for conviction of crime. See experiencе past Krauss v. claimant’s A. & M. Karagheusian, of the Inc., “Most factory, electronics in an 100 A.2d has been N.J. employment. regular her which was The urges in that dis- substance had packer she cookie The as a qualification under I Section subd. was before.” done never first, grounds: sep- error on two ****** aration involuntary and hence not cov- by statute, second, ered that if the work in the accepted the “The claimant separаtion voluntary, it fully aware plant, being electronics employment. attributable to the The employment. The the conditions all argument involuntary runs that on ter- primarily due separation was reason mination, “good cause” is travel and was not applicable inquiry and the go need no fur- While the claimant the work. cause, ther. good personal the law have had specific in that the direct cause is involuntary opiniоn the In our must be shown claimant’s separation must be character in to be attributable to short, a cause.” within not be order that example, by employer, act of the assessed.” layoff involuntary, and discharge or is upon the week’s
Nothing hinges in the case
voluntary. The
will of
is
packer.
employment as a cookie
quit compelled
voluntary
is, however, not a cause
in the Act
defined
findings of
The Commission’s
disqualification.
suрported by
fact are
credible evidence
A.
Jersey
in Krauss v.
The New
Court
16-IX
hence are conclusive. R.S. c.
Inc., supra,
retire-
Karagheusian,
& M.
9). Lowell
(now 26 M.R.S.A.
case,
opinion
in an
drawn
ment
Maine
Comm. et
v.
Justice
Brennan,
Supreme
271;
now a
al.,
Du Bois et
Me.
190 A.2d
Justice
unemployment
voluntary
ostensibly
States, persuasively
is
the United
Court of
”
unemployment.’
involuntary
into
proper
test at
286:
stated the
Division
Berry v.
&
Berry, Whitson
‘good cause’ must reflеct
“What
is
Sec., etc.,
Employ.
N.J.
purpose
act to relieve
underlying
of the
Court,
applying
Jersey
New
involuntary un
against
distress of
quit her
test,
who
held a wife
Krauss
paradox of
employment.
seeming
The
Maine on
parents’
in.
home
and went to
allowing
to an individual
Jersey
her husband from New
transfer of
voli
unemployment is of his own
whose
Kansas,
her work
left
naval air station
disappears
tion
when the context
and hence
“voluntarily
cause”
but
Leg
light.
in that
The
words is viewed
disqualified.
Department
was not
See also
contemplated
islature
that when an in
Labor,
Unemployment
etc. v.
C. Bd. of
voluntarily
joba
under
dividual
leaves
214;
R.,
Pa.Super. 518,
3 A.2d
pressure
of circumstances which
Employment Security
Moulton v.
Iowa
may reasonably
having
be viewed as
211;
Commission,
239 Iowa
34 N.W.2d
so,
compelled him to
the termina
do
Employment Security
Wolf’s v. Iowa
Com-
involuntary
of his
mission,
244 Iowa
See of trans- no lack employment” “Attributable there to such case the instant by travel plainly disability induced limits “good the breadth of cause.” but a portation There plant. home and Raytheon See Company required v. Director of between direct Sec., of a Emp. supra, Division of in which whatsoever is no evidence serv- disability and the the Massachusetts Court took note of between nection employment. scope in her increased cause” with the ices be removal requirement of connection is not sufficient It employment. between cause with the connected directly work. em if the is made that suggestion The good personal cause for quitting em- under Sec. suitable is not ployment ployment opinion directly in our must be to refusal Ill, relating A2 employment. attributable Fannon voluntary is therefore quit then Cartridge Corporation v. Federal (Minn.), employment. supra; Department Henderson v. In- be words-, job would if the In other Relations, dustrial 252 Ala. 40 So.2d him, suitable, assuming it were offered 629; Raffety Iowa Securi- under without he leave ty Commission, 247 Iowa 76 N.W.2d *7 I. subd. Sec. 787; Bussmann Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Com’n of Missouri (Mo.App.) 327 S.W.2d de in the factors as Insofar 487. connection suitability direct have termining
“There was con properly no work, they may evidеnce that her ill- be with ness employment was to her disqualification. due Dis finding when in sidered quit she on July 19, or that her from available work tance however, absence in thereafter, residence, from her not work is claimant’s concerned, employ far as her was illness this “attributable sense any way was in rea- personal connected with her is rather a ment.” Distance Ill, par. length unemployment 2. ings, “Sec. subd. A and his determining any securing A. In prospects whether or not his local work in for individual, customary occupation, work is suitable for an and the distance degree commission shall consider residence.” work from his available health, safety par. risk (Now involved to his and 26 M.R.S.A. morals, physical prior A.) his fitness training, experience prior his earn- son which unsuit- cause it good, render the work whether the was but whether apart any employ- able to the conditions was attributаble work. ment. employee In Louisiana hired promise he foreman on could ride to Administrator, Consiglio In Unem foreman, with from work held was Comp. Act, A. ployment Conn. job have left his with cause connect upheld that 2d the Court the decision quit ed with his work when fore he on paying the claimant left work for a better Brown, discharge. man’s Haskett v. 165 So. job “without connected sufficient (La.Ct.App.) 2d 25 on The case turned employment.” nothing with his was There employer creation of the condi * ** to lead to a conclusion “that the tion of of travel lack facilities under was the amount unsuitable because of circumstances. Such is not the instant any of remuneration reason.” or for other case. did The conditions of words, The Court stated the rule in these not touch on claimant’s travel. 353: reaching our we conclusion is, first, “Her contention that a cause are mindful “that our statutes such as leaving is sufficient connected Maine re Security Law are if that medial liberally and must be construed suitable, and, second, ment is not purpose of accomplishing ob their under the definition of suitable as con- ** jectives Stewart Em v. Maine tained in the act her ployment Comm., 152 Me. company the Echlin not suit- Our limit function is part able. The first is of her claim ed to determination of law. what is the contemplatе valid. The act not does We must take care that we do not alter that an upon a must remain or change policy of the law in the job extent, which is to the unsuitable process of construction. instance, endangers it his health. If he leaves which is legislative history The of Sec. really unsuitable, leaving not his is plainly subd. I shows a dis stiffening of voluntary. If the cause qualification from 1936 to 1961. have We job, the unsuitability is cause,” seen e., per i. сause is one which the administrator sonal cause of 1936 was limited “at might reasonably employment” find sufficient and tributable to such is in 1955. At the same time the other stated causes one the em- connected with added, except were re ployment.” tirement in 1961. The illness noted, repealed of 1957 was Consiglio, The cause in be 1961 and reenact it will ed in penalty disqualifica 1965. The unquestionably the em- connected with heavier in ploymеnt. sufficiency period became same issue shown the statutes the cause. below until in 1961 our case the issue is *8 “ * * * PX.1935, 5(a) and his maximum benefit 3. c. § reads: by be reduced shall an amount “For the week in left amount which he has equivalent voluntarily good cause, to the number of such weeks if so without weekly by commission, of times his bene- the and not less amount; .” fit 1 than the nor more than 5 weeks the PX.1955, immediately (in e. § 1—not less than nor follow such week waiting periоd), more than PX.1959, weeks. addition to the as deter- by according 341 —not nor more mined the to c. less than 5 commission * * case; than 14 the circumstances in weeks. each PX.1961, PX.1939, following c. § c. amend- 4—see Sec. 110 —the subd. in 1. ment above: I note was added to the law Webster, by completely Disability, computation was defined the basis for deprivation being of means —state changed. disabled — competent ability of or want of —absence of summary, we find indication no * * * means, power, fitness physical force the by Legislature the to lessen tention at- “voluntarily of without chang- By usually employment.” a cause not
tributable to or travel is Distance a penalty es reduction in but rather is in the law to worker, defini- the but does not bear on the to one’s incidental personal inconvenience disqualification. arising choice of of from one’s employee case, the the instant residence. see material For additional illustrative contract with the into entered Voluntary and Miscon- Kempfer, Leaving necessary incidental knowledge the travel of Sanders, 147-154; Dis- duct, 55 Yale L.J. employer. the employment, so did the but Insurance, qualification Unemployment 320; 307, 317, 8 Vand.L.Rev. C.J.S. however, may, aas Distance or travel Social and Public Welfare § science, when fact and medical matter of upon physical stresses of superimposed the endanger employment, conjointly rule application With the of the correct physi- employee reduce health the Commis- law the facts found ability em- power, and fitness cal sion, error in below. we find no the decision job that ployee such an extent to do entry will be unsuitable and particular job has become capacity beyond physical em- Appeal denied. proof words, could ployee. In other medical probably show that travel to WEBBER, J., did not sit. employment, together with the place of make it unsuit- physical job, exertions of the danger as a the health of em- able DUFRESNE, (concurring). Justice in the ployee employee if the continued I in the fully agree concur result. I bending way in that same the same R.S.1954, interpretation the majority’s standing jobs unsuitable becаuse become 29, 15, I, far that the as it rules physical degeneration. involuntary separation character of must case, record, instant no From the in the “good cause”, be found within that the disability finding appears, and the reason employer’s discharge layoff em- of an separation primarily is said been to have ployee common-type sepa- involuntary is the travel and attributable to the contemplated by ration the Act. True, the had claimed be- work. claimant I however disability maintain induced appeal referee, daily fore the statutory good travel comes within the physically had become too much for her employment, cause attributable to she introduced a medical certificate to the voluntary quit circum- under such injury, previous effect that due to a back disqualify stances should not miles driving day to work would be separation benefits. the em- Mere too strenuous. ployee proof induced travel without tribunal, finder, factual to do does not The lower as the fact evidence, statutory prerequisites support meet the could find with in the attributability. way ment was no changed weekly amount, e. benefit whichever 13— following weeks week in which occurs first. *9 or until he times left work has earned 8 primarily with the nected work hut was involved,
duced and without
specific finding to do only travel, findings
because per-
mean that the
sonal reasons unconnected
ment, wit, travel, primarily and thus reasons, agree
must For I stand. these appeal court conclusion
must be denied.
STATE of Maine
John J. WHITE.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Feb. Wahl, Portland, County Atty.,
Earl J. plaintiff. Bernstein, Shur, Nelson, Sawyer & Shur, Ward, Barnett I. C. Daniel Kenneth Laurence, Portland, for defendant. WILLIAMSON, J.,
Before C. and WEB- BER, TAPLEY, RUDMAN, MARDEN, DUFRESNE, JJ.
WILLIAMSON, Chief Justice. respondent appeal. On sodomy by guilty jury September