Opinion
No. 76-766
Decided April 28, 1977.
Employer sought review of full award of unemployment compensation benefits to terminated advertising salesman.
Order Affirmed
1. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION — Agreement of Parties — Terminate Employment — Specific Date — No Basis — Denial of Benefits — Precluded — Specific Statutory Provision. Although advertising salesman and his employer mutually agreed that the salesman's employment would terminate as of a specific date, that agreement is not a basis for denying the salesman benefits under the Colorado Employment Security Act; by specific provisions of the statute, that agreement between the parties could not operate to deprive the claimant of unemployment compensation benefits.
2. Omissions in Transcript — Industrial Commission Hearing — Adequate — — Present Specific Issue — Not Prevent — Proper Review. Although there are some omission's in transcript of Industrial Commission hearing, its relevant portions are entirely adequate to present the specific issue to be determined upon review of the matter, and thus, transcript is not so defective as to prevent proper review.
Review of Order of Industrial Commission of the State of Colorado
Gelt Webster, P.C., Richard H. Goldberg, for petitioner.
J. D. MacFarlane, Attorney General, Jean E. Dubofsky, Deputy Attorney General, Edward G. Donovan, Assistant Attorney General, James M. Downey, Special Assistant Attorney General, Joel W. Cantrick, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent Industrial Commission of the State of Colorado (Ex-Officio Unemployment Compensation Commission of Colorado).
No appearance for respondent Joel P. Goldberger.
Intermountain Jewish News, Inc., (employer) petitions for review of an order of the Industrial Commission granting claimant, Joel P. Goldberger, a full award of unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to § 8-73-108(4)(a), C.R.S. 1973. We affirm the order.
The facts are not disputed. Claimant was hired by the employer on June 11, 1975, in the capacity of an advertising salesperson. In mid-July 1975 the parties mutually agreed that claimant's employment would terminate following publication of what was termed the "Sports Issue" on August 8, 1975. Claimant was separated from employment on that date and he thereafter applied for and was awarded full unemployment compensation benefits.
The employer asserts there was insufficient evidence to sustain the finding that claimant was laid off for "lack of work." On the contrary, we find that the evidence is sufficient to sustain this finding.
The employer also asserts that the mutual decision to end claimant's employment on August 8, 1975, necessarily operates to preclude claimant from receiving unemployment compensation benefits. However, the employer does not contend that a particular provision of Article 73, Title 8, C.R.S. 1973, disqualifies the claimant, as a matter of law, from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.
[1] The fact that claimant agreed and understood that his employment would end at the expiration of a fixed term is not a basis for denying him benefits under the Colorado Employment Security Act. See In re Interrogatories by the Industrial Commission, 30 Colo. App. 599, 496 P.2d 1064 (1972). "Claimant's right to benefits under the Act cannot be denied on the basis of any agreement [he] entered into in connection with [his] employment." In re Interrogatories, supra. Also, § 8-80-101, C.R.S. 1973, provides that: "Any agreement by an individual to waive, release or commute his rights to benefits or any other rights under [the Colorado Employment Security Act] shall be void." Accordingly, the agreement between the parties could not operate to deprive claimant of unemployment compensation benefits.
[2] The employer also asserts that the transcript of the testimony from the Industrial Commission hearing is so defective that this court cannot properly review the matter. However, the only issue on this appeal is whether the mutual agreement between the claimant and the employer to terminate the employment on a specified date operated to bar claimant from receiving unemployment compensation benefits. Even though there are some omissions in the transcript, its relevant portions are entirely adequate to present that issue. See Almarez v. Carpenter, 173 Colo. 284, 477 P.2d 792 (1970).
The order of the Industrial Commission is affirmed.
JUDGE PIERCE and JUDGE STERNBERG concur.