YARDVILLE SUPPLY COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, RESPONDENT.
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Argued November 29, 1988—Decided March 23, 1989.
114 N.J. 371 | 554 A.2d 1330
HANDLER, J., joins in this opinion.
For affirmance—Chief Justices WILENTZ, and CLIFFORD, POLLOCK, O‘HERN and GARIBALDI—5.
For reversal—Justices HANDLER and STEIN—2.
Charles J. Casale, Jr., argued the cause for appellant (Charles J. Casale, attorney; Louis J. DeMille, Jr., on the brief).
Karen L. Hershey, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Cary Edwards, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney).
GARIBALDI, J.
Ernest Sparks, a truck driver, lost his job after his driving privileges were suspended due to his conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI). He sought and was granted unemployment compensation benefits. We hold that he should have been disqualified from collecting benefits under
Subsequently, Sparks’ driver‘s license was suspended for a period of six months. Sparks immediately informed Yardville of the suspension and inquired into the possibility of continuing to work at Yardville in a non-driving capacity. He was informed that no other work was available.
Sparks filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the Department of Labor, Division of Unemployment and Disability Insurance. The claim was approved. Yardville appealed, and after a hearing, the Appeals Examiner affirmed the determination of eligibility, finding that Sparks had not “left work voluntarily” under
The Appellate Division affirmed the Board‘s decision in Yardville v. Board of Review, 222 N.J.Super. 201 (1988). It held that Sparks’ loss of employment stemming from the suspension of his driving privileges does not constitute a voluntary quit under
I
New Jersey‘s Unemployment Compensation Act,
Prior to 1961 the Act did not disqualify claimants who “left work voluntarily for good cause” from receiving unemployment benefits, regardless of whether good cause was attributable to work. In 1961, however, the Legislature amended
(a) For the week in which the individual has left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work, and for each week thereafter until the individual becomes reemployed and works four weeks in employment, which may include employment for the federal government, and has earned in employ-
ment at least six times the individual‘s weekly benefit rate, as determined in each case. (emphasis supplied).2
The issue here is whether a truck driver whose decision to drink and drive resulted in the loss of his driver‘s license, a prerequisite to his employment, has left work voluntarily without good cause pursuant to
Sparks is not the sort of “involuntarily” unemployed worker that the Act is designed to protect. The policy underlying the Act is summed up in Schock, supra, 89 N.J.Super. at 125, quoting Battaglia v. Board of Review, 14 N.J.Super. 24, 27 (App.Div.1951):
It is not every case of unemployment which entitles an unemployed person to benefits. The purpose of the act is to provide some income for the worker earning nothing, because he is out of work through no fault or act of his own, until he can find employment or for the period stated in the statute, if he continues to be unemployed. (Emphasis added)
Accord Medwick v. Board of Review, 69 N.J.Super. 338, 340 (App.Div.1961). To allow Sparks to recover would subvert the expressed policy of providing aid to those who are unemployed “through no fault or act of [their] own” (emphasis added). Schock, supra, 89 N.J.Super. at 125.
Our decision is supported by Self v. Board of Review, 91 N.J. 453 (1982), the leading case to address the issue of what constitutes a voluntary quit under
If anything, Sparks has a weaker claim for receiving benefits than did the claimants in Self, who suddenly and involuntarily found themselves without any means of commuting to work. By contrast, Sparks’ unemployment is traceable directly to conduct for which he is responsible: his decision to drink and drive, made despite the knowledge that by risking his driving privileges he was endangering his livelihood as a truck driver.
Inexplicably, neither the dissent nor the Appellate Division cite Self. Instead, the Appellate Division relied on Means v. Board of Review, 172 N.J.Super. 465 (App.Div.), certif. den., 84 N.J. 451 (1980), decided prior to Self. Such reliance is misplaced. In Means the court specifically stated that it is not “apposite” to equate the case of a nurse who is unable to pass a required licensing examination with cases involving “the right of chauffeurs to unemployment benefits after their discharge because of job disqualification due to revocation of driving license [sic] as a result of voluntary and deliberate violations of the traffic laws.” Id. 172 N.J.Super. at 467.
Several out-of-state cases support our holding. Echols v. Michigan Security Commission, 380 Mich. 87, 155 N.W.2d 824 (1968), in particular, is directly on point. In that case the Michigan Supreme Court held that a taxicab driver who became temporarily unemployed after his driver‘s license was suspended for ninety days because of traffic violations had “left work voluntarily without cause,” and thus was not eligible to receive unemployment benefits. See also Hine v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 103 Pa.Cmwlth. 267, 520 A.2d 102 (1987), (auto mechanic who lost his driver‘s license, a prerequisite of employment, due to several off-the-job motor vehicle violations, disqualified from receiving benefits); Corbacio v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 78 Pa.Cmwlth. 70, 466 A.2d 1117 (1983) (delivery driver discharged because he lost driver‘s license for off-the-job speeding violations denied unemployment compensation benefits); Betancourt v. Ross, 60 A.D.2d 719, 401 N.Y.S.2d 8 (1977) (employee who was unable to attend work because he was in jail had “left work voluntarily“); Donahue v. Catherwood, 33 A.D.2d 848, 305 N.Y.S.2d 827 (1969) (taxi driver who lost his driving license because of his refusal to take a blood test for intoxication held to have voluntarily left his employment without good cause). But see Przekaza v. Department of Employment Sec., 136 Vt. 355, 392 A.2d 421, 422 (1978) (chauffeur whose driver‘s license, a prerequisite of employment, revoked following his DWI arrest during an off-the-job incident had not “left work voluntarily” because “the record is devoid of any evidence that the plaintiff intended to quit his job“).
Where it is reasonably foreseeable that an employee‘s voluntary conduct will render him unemployable, and his actions actually do lead to the loss of a prerequisite of employment, the employee leaves work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work under
II
The Attorney General, representing the Board of Review, concedes that under Self v. Board of Review, supra, 91 N.J. at 453, a truck driver who loses his driver‘s license due to an off-duty driving infraction and therefore is no longer able to work has voluntarily quit under
We agree that Sparks would be entitled to receive unemployment benefits if there exists substantial evidence that he was employed not solely as a truck driver but in other capacities as well. Under such circumstances loss of his driver‘s license need not have resulted in automatic unemployment.
We are convinced, however, that Yardville employed Sparks solely as a truck driver. Howard Gilbert, an executive vice president at Yardville, testified at the hearing that Sparks’ “only” job was as a truck driver. The only evidence in the record that suggests otherwise is a remark at the hearing in which Sparks stated that while employed at Yardville, “I was working in the yard once in a while.” At that same hearing, however, Sparks also admitted that when he lost his driver‘s license, “I was unable to do the job of which I was hired.” Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that there was available at Yardville alternative employment that Sparks was capable of performing satisfactorily, at the time that his driver‘s license was suspended.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Division and remand to the Division for entry of an appropriate judgment.
O‘HERN, J., dissenting.
The majority‘s decision to deny unemployment benefits to a truck driver who loses his license due to a driving under the influence violation may undoubtedly be good policy, but in
I hold no brief for drunk drivers. But as judges we do not have the power to punish their conduct more than has the Legislature. To say that this driver “quit” work is to say that words mean what we want them to mean. Rather, the Court should state clearly that it has determined in its judgment that this additional penalty should flow from a drunk driving conviction: if you lose your license and your boss fires you, you will receive no unemployment benefits.
As noted, this is undoubtedly a policy to be well received. Drunk driving is an abhorrent social malady. But courts are expected to apply legislative policy, not to enact it. I look first to the declaration of state public policy in our unemployment compensation law,
Economic insecurity due to unemployment is a serious menace to the health, morals, and welfare of the people of the state. Involuntary unemployment is therefore a subject of general interest and concern which requires appropriate action by the legislature to prevent its spread and to lighten its burden which now so often falls with crushing force upon the unemployed worker and his family. [
N.J.S.A. 43:21-2 ]
Not every unemployed worker is entitled to benefits, however. The Legislature has set forth benefit-eligibility conditions,
So far as is pertinent, the statute reads:
43:21-5. Disqualification for benefits
An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:
(a) For the week in which the individual has left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to such work, and for each week thereafter until the individual becomes reemployed and works four weeks in employment, which may include employment for the federal government, and has earned in employment at least six times the individual‘s weekly rate, as determined in each case. ***
(b) For the week in which the individual has been suspended or discharged for misconduct connected with the work, and for the five weeks which immedi-
ately follow that week (in addition to the waiting period), as determined in each case. ***
These are generically referred to as the “voluntary quit” and the “misconduct connected with work” provisions. Broderick v. Board of Review, Div. of Employment Sec., 133 N.J.Super. 30, 33 (App.Div.1975).
The distinction between (a) and (b), between “voluntary quit” and “misconduct” discharge, is significant. If the “voluntary quit” provisions apply, the claimant is disqualified at least until he has earned at least six times his weekly rate. In effect, this can be an indefinite disqualification if other work is not available. In contrast, under the “misconduct” subsection, no new job requirement is specified, and a worker is disqualified only for the week in which he or she has been discharged and the five weeks immediately following such week (in addition to the waiting period).
In this case, the Court holds that the worker has quit his job. Ante at 375. Even the Unemployment Compensation Board would not do that in this case, noting that there was other available work at the plant for this worker. I could understand an agency determination that a truck driver who has lost his license due to such an infraction has so disregarded reasonable requirements of his employment as to conclude that he was terminated for misconduct connected with the work. That is the approach of the Maine Unemployment Commission. See Look v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm‘n, 502 A.2d 1033 (Me.1985); see also Goudy v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 86 Pa.Cmwlth. 435, 485 A.2d 848 (1984) (professional driver is ineligible for unemployment insurance when discharged for off-duty violation which only results in loss of driver‘s license). Claimant was fired. Consequently, the Court should decide this case under section 5(b), which is intended for cases where the employee is discharged. See Broderick, supra, (claimant does not voluntarily quit work when the employer discharges the employee for refusal to comply with the employer‘s reasonable direction).
Is it better policy that the worker‘s family be made to pay indefinitely to advance the enforcement of drunk-driving laws, or is the policy against drunk driving sufficiently advanced by the criminal sanctions without the additional loss of the breadwinner‘s contribution? These are questions that courts should best leave to the Legislature or the agencies entrusted with their administration.
When courts enact social policy, they lack the informational resources that legislatures have and the ability to balance competing social interests. For example, California‘s unemployment code provides that if employment is terminated due to absence from work because of incarceration, the worker “shall be deemed to have left his work voluntarily without good cause ***.” Kaylor v. Department of Human Resources, 108 Cal.Rptr. 267, 269, 32 Cal.App.3d 732, 734 (1973) (quoting
Is it not anomalous to observe that if the incident had occurred while Sparks was driving for his employer and had been terminated for that as misconduct under
In this case, although the Division of Employment Review suggests, in a brief filed in our Court, that such misconduct is a “voluntary quit,” it would not apply that disqualification in this case in which it found that there was other available work for the employer. See Flick v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Div., 443 N.E.2d 84 (Ind.App.1982) (disqualification for failure to hold a valid driver‘s license could not be reasonably concluded without a determination of whether there was available work). Hence, I would affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division.
Justice STEIN joins in this opinion.
For reversal and remandment—Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK and GARIBALDI—5.
For affirmance—Justices O‘HERN and STEIN—2.