Opinion
File No. 68424
An unemployment compensation claimant, who lost a position paying $30 per week by the closing of her employer's business, declined to be referred for work by an interviewer in the office of the United States Employment Service, stating that she preferred to wait until her former employer called her back, and subsequently declined to return to work for her former employer, upon the reopening of its business, at a salary of $22-24 per week because of insufficiency of compensation offered. The conclusion of a compensation commissioner that the claimant was not genuinely interested in seeking employment for which she was well qualified, and therefore that she was not available for work, within the meaning of the statute, would not be disturbed upon appeal (Supp. [1941] § 718f[b][1]). The conclusions reached by the commissioner were not subject to be disturbed unless they resulted from an incorrect application of the law to the facts found or could not reasonably and logically follow from such facts.
MEMORANDUM FILED DECEMBER 31, 1942.
Mary Flores, pro se.
Memorandum of decision on appeal from Unemployment Compensation Commissioner.
This is an appeal from the denial of the appellant's claim for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Act.
The issue presented is whether the appellant was available for work within the meaning of sections 718f (a)(2) and 718f (b)(1) of the 1941 Supplement to the General Statutes. The examiner and the commissioner have found that the appellant was not available for work within the meaning of said provisions.
The finding of facts discloses that the claimant was employed as a sample dressmaker, at a salary of $30 a week, for a period of two years. She ceased working when her employer closed its place of business. She then filed a claim and received unemployment benefits for a period of four weeks. Thereafter, when questioned by an interviewer in the U.S. Employment Service office who desired to refer her for work in a dress shop, she stated that she preferred to wait until her former employer called her back. Within a few days her former employer reopened its business and notified her to return to work. She could not return at that time on account of a bad leg. Shortly thereafter she was again interviewed and it appeared that her failure to return to work was primarily because her old job was no longer in existence, and the job available for her would pay about $22 to $24 a week. She stated that she expected to receive about $30 a week before she would accept employment.
The commissioner concluded that she was not genuinely interested in seeking employment for which she was well qualified through training and experience, and therefore that she was not available for work, within the meaning of the statute.
The conclusions reached by the commissioner are not to be disturbed unless they resulted from an incorrect application of the law to the facts found or could not reasonably and logically follow from such facts.
The facts found indicate that the claimant was offered suitable work by her former employer and that she failed, without sufficient cause, to accept such employment. She has thus clearly brought herself within the class declared ineligible by section 718f (b)(1), and no conclusion other than that she was unavailable for work was warranted.