*1 374; Fitzgerald Fitzgerald, in the evi There is a conflict P.2d appellant fall. The N.M. 369 398. We think 70 one saw the dence. No amply supports is substantial and from evidence comes only an accident evidence of The did of the court. cowork He his appellant himself. told grant requested findings err er, refusing McGregor, that he had off fallen contrary. Paving Herrera v. & R Be C and did so. home tree and going 339; All- Company, P.2d N.M. at the was no work cause of snow there Space, 531. days. sup N.M. mining claim for the next 3 resumed, appellant returned work When here, but questions Other are raised complaints an in j to his ob made no but they need view the reached conclusions However, being in pain. jury or of no discussion. laid that after that he would off formed af- judgment below noon, McGregor quit he at instead. noon firmed. It is so ordered. signs an accident he saw no testified that complain to appellant and that the did NOBLE, JJ., concur. CHAVEZ and pain. McGregor him or of injury of an testified appellant, and he lived with the that eve
further that when he went home injury heard
ning signs no of an he saw pain
any complaints by appellant
then or
immediately
would cause Rehearing March Denied the facts a situation it was the trier of in the evidence. to resolve the conflicts Company,
Utter v. Marsh Sales *3 Kitts,
Smith, Ran- Kiker Richard E. & som, Albuquerque, appellee Grinslade. for appellee Foy Vesely, City, for & Silver Wilson. Fe,
Gilbert, Gilbert, &White Santa J. City, appellee Wayne Woodbury, for Silver Croom. Frazier, Albuquerque, decisions, Employ- Upon
A. M. review of the Commission’s Security ment Commission. the district court that the Commis- found fact, sion’s law conclusions of Poole, Albuquerque, Poole & Shantz & and decisions in Cause 15220 were No. Dickson, City, Copper Silver for Kennecott evidence, “contrary weight to the Corp. unsupported by the evi- unwarranted and in- dence.” then made its own The court NOBLE, Justice. dependent findings fact and conclusions reversing judgment law and entered Security (here- Commission those of the Commission. Commission) and Kenne- after called the Corporation called Copper (hereafter cott procedure The for review of decisions judg- appealed from three Kennecott) have (h) by 59-9-6 governed Commission is County court Grant the district ments of por- pertinent (i), reversing the Commission decisions of tion of which reads: denied benefits had up- commission of the “The or had been em- were claimants who by it any disputed matter decided The claims were Kennecott. ployees of upon the law both may be reviewed claim- of which the by the unions grouped by district court and the facts members, removed for ants were county person seeking wherein the by three writs court view to upon certiorari.” resides the review consolidated there hear- certiorari (§ (c) 81(c) (4) 21-1-1(81) rule judgments appeals three from the ing. (4)): consolidated in this district court are single appeal. into try and court shall de- “The district upon the evidence cause termine such unemployment compensa- claims for hearing be- legally at the introduced dispute of a reason between tion arose security commis- fore said Union of Mine-Mill and International Smel- parties said presented sion Mine-Mill) (hereafter called ter Workers hearing After cause court. said Kennecott, which resulted a work shall make fact of a stoppage at Kennecott because strike *4 judgment and of law enter conclusions by morning Mine-Mill at the commenced upon the merits.” therein 7, August 1959. claims were shift however, disagreement parties, arc in upon ground The by the the Commission denied by scope district to the of review the disqualified for benefits claimants were court, Prestridge in Lumber Co. announced by 59-9-5(d), N.M.S.A.1953. virtue of §
7 ally Security Commission, to whether decision is ar- N. limited the 50 discussing bitrary capricious 309, and P.2d After M. rules, substantial evidence. We not construe and the court do
both the statute this quantum limiting the of our decisions there said: reviewed to the evidence meet constitutional «* * * We take this statute [the ' Each of requirements. those decisions con- mean the district court rule] limited strued different statutes and to be is findings fact, make its own shall of aft- particular being the considered. statute of the er a review evidence. It does Furthermore, them, in each we were mean, necessarily, not that the district chiefly concerned with whether or ad- new ignore findings must might accepted ditional evidence be on re- may give It them Commission. some additionally in view and each case we were weight follow the and should Commis- concerned with review the discre- making own, findings sion’s its save an tionary action of administrative officer. clearly prepon- evidence where the Employ- The review of * * * [citing against them derates Security nearly ment Commission more however, analysis, last In the cases]. Corporation that from the sembles State responsibility making correct Commission, but there are dissimilarities findings with the district court and rests which make our decision in Transcontinen- hampered not or embarrassed is System, Corporation Inc. tal Bus State performance duty by this Commission, 56 N.M. P.2d findings Commission.” controlling. The district in review- position It Kennecott’s that the district is Unemployment ing Security an Commission adopt required is the Commission’s Corporation decision unlike that from findings do as its own unless such Commission, governed by specific rules in the evidence. have substantial promulgated adopted court. this contrary, Appellees, lan- on the find in the guage Prestridge authority majority dis- true that for the both adopted entirely disregard Com- and Federal trict State courts have court to ad to make own based evidence rule for review of mission’s Davis, agency decisions, Ad record. ministrative legal evidence 29.01, Law, have Appellants later decisions ministrative and we assert our Sanchez, construing adopted the review 67 N.M. that view Johnson provisions applicable to administra Montoya, N.M. other Yarbrough v. v. Oil agencies. tive Continental Oil Co. we held a review Commission, Conservation an administrative decision is constitution- *5 8 Co., 474, statute, (h) Exposition 472, 175 Ill. 59-9-6 N.E.
P.2d 809.
652;
133,
N.M.S.A.1953,
(4)
651,
Gregory,
v.
Mo.
State
81(c)
and rule
(i),
make such conclusions given in a “Whether evidence the dis- lawfully therefrom. If follow finding case is sufficient legal evi- trict court determines jury, when taken considered fails to sub- the Commission dence before be in which it must on fashion decision, stantially support demurrer, depends on it is suf- whether court shall make own then district ficient establish with reasonable cer- fact, and de- findings of conclusions of law tainty persons minds ordi- only upon evidence legal based cision nary average exist- intelligence the Prestridge the Commission. If con- before ence of the facts which said, we have then it mod- flicts what necessarily based.” ified to conform herewith. confusion has arisen re Much event, any court in district In viewing an decisions of inferior case that the Commission’s this determined by the term tribunal as to what is meant findings, un and decisions were conclusions “substantial evidence.” It means more than supported by substantial evidence. merely any than a scin evidence more based its denial benefits Commission contemplates tilla of evidence and such rele upon finding the claimants legal person as a vant evidence reasonable disqualified receive bene support a might accept con as sufficient to 9—5(d), provisions fits under of § 59— & McCague York C. St. clusion. v. New pertinent portions of Co., R. 225 Ind. N.E.2d L. provide: Offutt v. Columbian World’s
Q Disqualification During Disputes, bene- sation “59-9-5. Labor 37 Neb.L. fits.—An which the commission finds that his unemployment dispute work which fied [*] (d) for benefits— n For at the [*] individual exists factory, is due to [*] week with because of a labor shall [*] establishment, a stoppage respect [*] disquali- [*] or of *6 participated untarily benefits. Rev. to cross and are Appellants ineligible left work picket lines, in the Mine-Mill labor to receive first without claimants either vol urge good by failing cause or dispute, employed Kennecott persons, some 1500 premises other at which he is or was more than whom represented half of employed; Provided, last that this sub- by Mine-Mill, which called the On strike. apply section if it shall is shown August 6, 1959, Mine-Mill notified Kenne- to of the satisfaction the commission cott it would plant strike its Chino at the that— morning shift change on August 10. Ken- (1) participating He is not in or di- necott immediately shutting commenced rectly dispute interested the labor down securing plant, its machinery and work; stoppage which caused the of equipment, by morning August of 7 had operations completely ceased except for necessary some work in (2) belong grade does not connection He to a closing plant. which, Mine-Mill or class workers of immedi- commenced of picketing massive ately in the morning before the commencement Au- gust 7, but this was reduced stoppage, pickets to a employ- there were members few at all entrances injunction after an premises against stop- ed at the at which the picketing massive occurs, was page any by obtained partici- whom are Kenne- cott. pating directly in or interested in the * *
dispute; question, Our first therefore, is whether course, is, questioned but there was work available for the claimants work, stoppage resulting during in claim- at Kennecott the strike. It is not that, unemployment, disputed by ants’ a labor was caused policy to its pre- dispute, disputes, nor that the bur- labor the statute vious casts Kennecott did not ad- escape den the claimant to the dis- vertise nor advise its non-striking em- qualification by showing eligibility their un- ployees availability of work during (2) der A.L.R.2d (1) both above. 28 position regarding strike. Kennccott’s 287, 331; Haggart, Unemployment Compen- availability work illustrated statement, appeared what can do wouldn’t know
only public know we have September, 1959 issue and we what work Kennecott’s “Chinorama,” assign in the available and we could it. form of publication, fairly answer: We have to be careful we put don’t have some fellow aon any employee to available “Q. work Is job, Mine-Mill or however we during work who wants it, .may do because we would be strike ? soup then on.” employee wants work an “A. If 4, N.M.S.A.1953, prires rí Sec. 59-9— strike, may report he during the unemployment compensation for claimant regular foreman in the to his work, at register an for officeat will mine and he plant at the pre- times Commission shall available work is whether told 59-9-5(c) txpressly scribe rule. de- § for him.” disqualification grounds fines the work testimony some There actively failure seek work required tes- but no available made have been could 59-9-4(c) following language: actually pointed out that timony been has * * * “(c) that he has failed employees available made good cause either apply without availability of work were advised *7 available, work when so suitable direct- position company’s during the strike. by the officeor the ed com- man- general to was further testified accept to or suitable mission work why to to a ager, in answer him.” when offered any, work, if there availability of formerly been had advertised was not appears employees uncontradicted that It done: inquired of of the Commission Kennecott necessary. whether work was available and officers think it was We didn’t “A. come were told that such decision must general a statement If we’d made suppose now— n offices; general that such that, from Kennecott’s like representatives be- be advised of such what I would to which is decision, any work but that bunch of men were never told suppose a lieve— made then, be had been available. right what would back or had come them, appear any There does evidence that done would we have emplosonent any had appropriate offices able out to sort until we were is, port any work available. There called them such jobs and the different likewise, testimony employees and they up, we that those Had come properly.
H Commission, Employment inquired were Cal.2d representatives who union 202; Bates, Andreas they advised later whether P.2d Wash. told would be upon by relied work, appel- ad- were not so 2d there would be but lants, distinguishable. is no are Without appears It there review- vised. us detail, appears ing decision it support in work each the evidence of knowledge claimants having at Kennecott in each case the had been made available but, strike, availability work, during claimants one or that work, any another, refused to cross the were ever advised of available reason picket nor is there that either an em- line. evidence
ployment directed office the Commission It is not enough might that some work any apply any place claimant to at for avail- they have been made a available to few able, work. suitable picket had crossed the line. We have appears clear to us that Kennecott of been cited holding it merely seeking get ficials were the non duty picket of the claimant cross the striking employees picket to cross lines and merely line to ascertain whether work is plant. position come into the It was their him, available to nor a failure to so they until did would not advise cross disqualifies under such circumstances employees whether or not there was unemployment claimant for This benefits. available work. This is further borne out particularly would seem be true when strong by appellants’ contention that mere operations known been com- had picket to cross the lines to ascertain failure pletely equipment shut down all se- work was available amounted to whether and, cured under where the circumstances actively work, either failure to or to seek company, during prior disputes, labor had dispute, in Mine-Mill participation labor clearly employees non-striking advised the disqualified them from particular work that was available Lloyd Mary E. Mitchell Inc. v. benefits. to them. Security Board, 209 Md.
land Cummins, A.2d Cottini v. gener While we think the decisions Mary ally agree voluntarily Brown Ill.2d that one who refuses Unemployment Compensation Board, picket go land to cross line to to his work which 696; Meyer participates 55 A.2d 189 Md. v. Indus is available to him in the labor *8 Missouri, Mo.App. dispute, equally recognized trial Commission it is well 835; Baker 223 S.W.2d v. one has Powhatan who reason to fear violence or bod Co., ily required pass picket Mining Ohio St. 67 N.E.2d harm is not a 714; Terminals, line, necessary claimant, Inc. Matson v. California nor it is that a unemployment benefits, eligible Maryland for ac as in Unemployment Brown v. experience bodily Compensation Board, harm supra. violence or
tually
By
acting,
picket
upon
a
A rea
attempt
present,
line.
in an
cross
here
facts
we think claim-
voluntarily
harm or violence is suffi
fear of
ants neither
sonable
left work without
Cummins,
good
v.
Ill.2d
participated
dispute.
Oil Co.
cient. Shell
cause nor
in this
64;
Outboard Marine &
131 N.E.2d
statute,
unemploy
Under the
one whose
Co.,
Motors Division Gor
Mfg.
v.
Johnson
ment is
stoppage
due
a
of work caused
610;
don,
Lanyon
403 Ill.
dispute
a
ineligible
labor
for unem
Administrator, Unemployment Compen
ployment benefits unless he establishes that
Act, 139
89 A.2d
Conn.
sation
he
statutory escape
falls within both of the
Meyer v. Industrial Commission of Mis
exceptions.
Cummins,
Shell Oil Co. v.
su
Additionally,
may
supra.
such fear
souri,
pra;
Gordon,
Brown Shoe
Ill.
Co.
potential
violence,
as
from the
well
arise
Cummins,
91 N.E.2d
Cottini v.
Oil
violence itself. Shell
Co.
as
supra. Appellants
59-9-5,
assert that
N.
Cummins, supra.
M.S.A.1953,
disqualifica
does not confine
employees
participated
tion to those
who
history
of violence in for-
In view of
dispute,
a
financed
labor
nor even to
disputes
County,
labor
Grant
mer
those for whom work was available but
at least
during
on
one occasion
the refusal
picket
perform
who failed to
a
cross
line to
permit supervisory personnel
strike to
this
They
it.
cite a number of decisions
oth
premises;
some
enter
threats of
jurisdictions defining
“directly
er
term
picketing
and a return to mass
violence
dispute”
interested in the labor
to include
occasion, requiring disciplinary
one
ac-
hours,
wages,
one whose
conditions or
say
we cannot
tion
favorably
be affected
work will
or adverse
part
the court of fear on the
ly by
dispute.
the outcome of the labor
evidence,
unsupported by
claimants is
This,
say,
prevailing
view.
nor
to the
the Commission’s
However,
the authorities are not uniform
n supported.
were so
the definition. 28 A.L.R.2d
ordinary
appear
This does not
to be the
concerned,
case,
directly
are not
this
We
presume
the courts will
'circumstance where
term,
proper
definition of the
be
abiding
no
and that
are law
strikers
it,
cause,
turn
the decision must
we view
non-striking em-
violence would occur
of what caused the work
i
perform
picket lines to
ployees
crossed
stoppage.
a case
this
Nor was
their usual work.
think,
us, and,
plain to
we
It is
pickets was
presence of
mere
jwhere
unemployment,
denied,
at
claimants’
reporting
to work
an excuse
used
*9
instance,
in the first
least
was due to
la-
division
all
a
of Kennecott that
of its locals
dispute between Mine-Mill
August 10,
bor
Kenne-
had been advised
strike on
resulting
grievance
from
cott
a
over the
follows that the cause of
work stoppage
the
suspension
That
a Mine-Mill member.
August
dispute
after
was the economic
the
ef-
cause of
strike called and
was
the
over
contract
labor
We
terms.
do not
equally plain
us
August
agree.
fective
It is
The evidence is clear that after
in
dispute
that
labor
not one
commencement of the
on August 7,
strike
“directly
interested.”
go
claimants were
offered
Mine-Mill
back to work if the
en-
disputed suspension
The Commission
was lifted. Kennecott
directly
ef-
tertain
as to the
argued
views
It is
such grievance
refused.
de-
fect
The Commission
disputes
evidence.
last
seldom
more than 24 hours.
began
dispute
termined that
labor
appears
testimony
while the
It
the
Kenne-
grievance matter,
aft-
it was continued
negotiator
as
grievance
cott
that this
dispute
August
dispute.
disposed
er
a labor contract
as
had not been
of even at the date
finding
of the district
as to
hearing.
of the Commission
Findings may
dispute
upon
for
speculation
reason
continuance of the labor
conjecture.
not rest
or
contrary.
Krasnow,
39,
is to
54 N.M.
Petrakis
213 P.2d
Cantrell,
Southern Union Gas Co. v.
It is contended that because the contracts
P.2d 1209.
expired
all
at
unions
Chino
on the same
carry-
date,
provisions
with similar
nearly
This case more
resembles that in
over, pending negotiations;
prior
to Martineau v. Director of Division
Em-
expiration
Sec.,
ployment
their
all unions at
dates
Chino
106 N.E.2d
Mass.
contracts;
negotiations
commenced
for new
where the court
what it
subscribed to
past
granted
all
Kennecott has
rule, denying
referred
as the majority
unions the
as
same terms
the most favor-
benefits to one who would benefit from the
April, 1959,
negotiated;
one
all
dispute.
able
labor
held
It
was there
except
unions
International Association
before
it could not be
record
proposals
said,
Machinists
concluded,
submitted identical
claim-
board
that the
changes
program;
health and
welfare
ant
strike.
would derive
benefit from the
and, that
appeared
after commencement of the strike
that the
“over terms
strike was
and to
time of the Commission’s deci-
of a
conditions
renewal contract.”
sion,
negotiations
sporadic
contract
became
board would
Massachusetts court said the
desultory;
and,
August
because on
claimant “di-
justified
have been
president
dispute
rectly
noti-
involved
Mine-Mill had
interested”
if
conditions,
general manager
hours,
wages,
working
fied the
but
of the western
only possible
prob-
but
compensation act,
provide
it was not
that while
sus-
dispute
did involve such
unemployed
there
tenance
able that
to those who are
issues,
proof in
proper
through
there was no
no fault
their own
who are
is conceded willing
ready
op-
of that fact. Since it
given
record
to work
strike,
case,
call-
portunity.
Miera,
the instant
Graham v.
59 N.M.
dispute
grievance
over
reason
ed
Parsons v.
*10
member,
suspension
in
Security Comm.,
of a Mine-Mill
405,
71 N.M.
which ested,” say we cannot that the district construction, view we do our of In determining the find- erred in Commission’s compensation believe an of award support in ings be without benefits under would do these circumstances was, therefore, an evidence. There public violence to the this state. policy of disqualifying basis for the claim- insufficient Cummins, supra. Shell agree Oil Co. v. We 59-9-5(d) (1), N.M.S.A.1953. under ants § Queener Mills, Magnet v. 179 Tenn. 416, 1, “grade 167 or class” S.W.2d applied “integral The Commission organized an group, means or at least functioning” as the basic tests of one of concert, group, acting cohesive where the under the New Mexico Un grade or class striking of member with the sanction acts Compensation Act. The inte associates, in his their behalf. rejected construing has gration test been meaning of “establishment.” Tennes appears It that unlike the clear to us situ- Martin, Coal, & v. 251 see Iron R. Co. Ala. 315, Pratt, ation in 20 200 S.C. v. Johnson 547, Appeal 153, Park 36 So.2d and in v. 865, and Iron S.E.2d Members of Workers’ Employment Security Michigan Board of Commission, of Union Provo Industrial v. 103, 407, Commission, 94 N.W.2d 355 Mich. 208, 242, the claimants 104 Utah P.2d 139 “integral 420, functioning” overruled represented by striking were not here test of the extent of “the the basic es single bargaining agency, Mine-Mill as Michigan Employment tablishment” 564, Boyd, Ga.App. 13 nor are Huiet v. 64 applied Chrysler Security Act as Cor Steelman, 863; In N.C. 306. S.E.2d re 219 Smith, Mich. poration N.W. 544; Board v. Review S.E.2d or Abshier rejection equally is 87, 135 A.L.R. Its Div., 122 Indiana Ind. Sec. grade a basic test the extent of valid as 902, persuasive, App. 425, since 105 or class. existence appears in those cases it meaning grades classes within clearly committed
This to a interpretation liberal our the statute was assumed. It reviewing conclude that the find-
We Commission’s stated that in decisions Unemployment ings Compensation that claimants were members Commis- sion, striking Mine- grade or as the such same class findings commission’s employees by integral func- reason of fact as are Mill substantial evidence a matter of law shall tioning, adopted by are erroneous as the court which shall correctly then vacated make legally conclusions law which Acting 81(c) (4), under Rule follow court. therefrom. With this statement properly quarrel. district court then made its own there can be little It is the same and, approved and conclusions under rule of review us in Johnson circumstances, Sanchez, 449; it becomes our function to 67 N.M. 351 P.2d Yar- brough Montoya, and con- review the district court’s 54 N.M. 769; Reynolds,
clusions. We have done so and conclude Heine v. substantially supported by the evi- Company are P.2d Continental Oil v. Oil Commission, Conservation 70 N.M.
dence and are lawful.
recently
and most
restated
ap-
judgments
of the district
Kelley
Dist.,
Irrigation
v. Carlsbad
71 N.M.
from,
pealed
will be affirmed.
is so
nothing
ent review for other agencies, specifically administrative COMPTON, CHAVEZ, J, J., and C. *11 majority agree with the statement of the concur. anything Prestridge said in M. R. Lum- Employment Security ber Co. v. Commis- MOISE, JJ„ dissenting. CARMODY and sion, might which conflict, should be set be considered now MOISE, (dissenting). Justice aright. opinion majority, while an- The the majority, The after their discussion of applicable nouncing of law the correct rules review, scope proceed to the consider the proceedings administra- reviewing making the district court in its actions of agencies, disregards tive these rules com- fact, being, the findings of same in the own so, and, pletely deciding doing case the main, contrary conflicting with to and those arrives at an It will erroneous conclusion. majority The by the commission. made my this is purpose to demonstrate that true. that the district court “determined that state findings, edra, conclusions and Commission’s
the
70 N.M.
and is the
by
unsupported
decisions were
substantial
by
rule
the trial court
bound in re-
which
is
Only
involving
in the case
em-
findings
evidence.”
viewing
the commission. See
the
ployees
were members of
Brother-
who
and the other cases dis-
Sanchez
Johnson
true.
Trainmen is this
scope
review,
supra.
of Railroad
cussing
hood
cited
However,
neces-
that was
not assert
appeal
I do
that on
from the district
follows
made.
sary that
a determination be
must
trial
we
determine
the
court
those
conflict
By
findings
applied
has
correct
the
rule
review.
commission,
court
by
I assume the
made
the
separate
I direct attention to
occa-
three
concluding
was
necessarily
that there
was
opinion
majority
where the
have
sions
the
support for
an absence of
governing
not
the rules
review as
followed
being
findings
commission. This
the
by them.
announced
true,
the commission
before
the evidence
performance
the
It is in
must be reviewed.
say
majority
they
state
“cannot
majority
er-
fall into
of this task
finding by
the
court of fear on the
they
opinion
their
It is clear
ror.
part
unsupported
is
of claimants
view
with a
the evidence
have reviewed
evidence,
findings
nor that the commission’s
trial
determining if
supported.”
whereas,
thereby;
court are
already
out, is,
question,
pointed
true
the com-
approach
to determine if
proper
supported by
sub-
the commission’s
supported by the
findings were
mission’s
evidence,
finding of
stantial
evidence.
supported.
the trial court so
purely
academic
The distinction is
findings of
Again, it is stated that certain
apparent
importance is
con-
one. Its
when
mat-
as a
commission were “erroneous
given
conflicting
sideration
evidence
law,
correctly
ter
vacated
and were
favoring
which would
Further,
“the
district court.”
dispute.
fact
either side of the
It is the
own
properly made its
district
then
case,
instant
Com-
duty
finder’s
”
—in
***
findings and conclusions
mission—to resolve the
When
conflicts.
review
that it is now our function to
done, substantial
be-
this has been
evidence
findings and conclusions of the district
ing present,
findings are
be over-
not to
supported.
substantially
are
see if
court. This is the rule
turned
*12
the
appeal
reviewing
facts
difficult
me to understand
that binds us on
findings are errone-
trial
Montano v. Saav-
certain
found
the
statement that
they necessary
support
Findings as made
the
a matter of law.
ous as
evidence,
Compare
may
unsupported by
the commission.
Cottini
be
substantial
v. Cum
mins,
matter
they
8 Ill.2d
Even where
there was
disqualified
ployee
is not
to establish
he
being
of work
made
substantial evidence
Kennecott,
(d), N.M.S.A.
appellees
for benefits under
59-9-5
or that
available at
Poison
advised,
Appeals by Employees of
Mills,
Shingle
Lumber
Wash.2d
had directed
claimant
available
&
office
Hix,
316; Copen
work,
130W.Va.
it should be noted that the commis-
rule,
findings,
recognizing
had
no
made
nor were
S.E.2d 382. While
sion
*13
From commission, am I satisfied before the Feb. substantially supported, and findings are not a properly follow. It is
its conclusions interpretation or of liberal or strict That the law is statute.
application open ques liberally construed
to be Miera, 285 P. Graham
tion. Employment Security 492; Parsons v.
2d
Commission, 71 N.M.
However, do not see in decision of the I apply failure the statute
commission
properly.
Having concluded had substantial commission evidence, it follows trial court Further, these have sustained them.
should reached the conclusions my considered the commission. having
judgment trial turn, should,
versed the commission respectfully dissent
reversed. I major- reached conclusion
ity.
CARMODY, J., concurs.