Claimants Awaiting Recall—Their Special Problems of Availability and Suitability of Work by Olga S
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Claimants Awaiting Recall—Their Special Problems of Availability and Suitability of Work By Olga S. Halsey* "THE CLAIMANT was denied benefits be• cept suitable employment if it were cause he stated he was returning to his offered. On the basis of these facts, former employment."1 This claimant he was held to have been unavailable for unemployment benefits, appealing for work and ineligible for benefits from a decision to deny him benefits, until the day on which he said that testified that he had expected to re• he was willing to take other suitable turn to his former employer; that by work. the time of the hearing, however, he To the employee, denial of unem• was not quite sure that he would be ployment benefits under such a de• recalled; and that he would now ac- cision means economic pressure to take other work rather than to wait, *Bureau of Employment Security, Pro• wholly at his own expense, for his reg• gram Division. 1Md. 9817, Dec. 19, 1945; contra: Md. ular employer to resume operations. 9548, Dec. 14, 1945, unpublished. For sim• To the employer, it may mean inabil• ilar holdings see 9865-Ala. A (June 18, ity to recall experienced workers 1945), Ben. Ser., Vol. 8, No. 10; Ga. AT- when he again starts production. For 4199, Feb. 1, 1946. Citations to Ben. Ser. refer to Benefit Series of the Unemploy• unemployment insurance, such a de• ment Compensation Interpretation Serv• cision raises questions as to the cir• ice, issued by the Social Security Board cumstances under which claimants through Vol. 9, No. 7, and thereafter by may be considered "available for the Social Security Administration. Cita• tions to unpublished decisions give the work"—a condition which all claim• name of the State and the official State ants must meet if they are to be number of the case. eligible for unemployment benefits. Is the requirement that a claimant employee who had worked 23 years made no effort to find another job. must be "available" for work satis• for her last employer and was laid off In holding this claimant available for fied, as this and similar decisions as• for lack of work. Two weeks later, work, the referee pointed out that, in sume, only if the claimant is "avail• she registered with the U. S. Employ• view of her seniority and the fact that able for work without restrictions— ment Service for other work and filed her lay-off was temporary, she should that is, available for any work which her claim for unemployment benefits; have a reasonable period in which to he is qualified by training and ex• nearly 3 weeks later, she accepted a be recalled before looking for other perience to do"?2 Or is it satisfied referral by the USES and explained work. The Vermont Unemployment if the claimant is available for work to the prospective employer that she Compensation Commission has that is suitable to him as an individ• expected to return to her regular em• adopted a somewhat similar policy. ual and that he has a reasonable pros• ployer within 2 weeks. Because of her Its policy8 is that, when an employer pect of securing in the labor market statement that she planned to return confirms a claimant's statement that where he wishes work? 3 If this pro• to her regular employer, this claimant he will be recalled within 4 weeks, the vision meets the availability require• was held unavailable for work, on the claimant shall not be disqualified for ment, the availability of the individ• ground that a claimant who restricts refusing any work within this period. ual claimant who will be recalled is a herself to one employer is not avail• If the lay-off is expected to be more question of fact to be determined in able for work. Or take the case5 of a extended or lasts beyond the original each individual case. Under this ap• rivet presser who had worked for her 4-week period, discretion is given to proach, the availability of such a employer for about 21 years when she the Commission's local representative claimant will depend on the limita• was laid off because of shortages of to decide whether or not the claimant tions he may impose in view of his material. She did not follow up a is to be disqualified for refusing other• prospects of a recall—its certainty referral to work as an unskilled wise suitable work. and the anticipated duration of his laborer at 40 cents an hour for a 50- lay-off. hour week in a city 7 miles away. Willingness to take temporary Questions of "suitable work" and She discussed this job, however, with work.—A middle position is taken by of "good cause" for refusing suitable her husband and he then called her some State appeals bodies, which ex• work may also arise when a worker, foreman, who assured them that the pect claimants who have been tempo• in view of promised or expected re• claimant would be back at work in rarily laid off to be willing to take call by his last employer, declines to the old plant in a few days and ad• suitable temporary work. Thus a take a particular job open to him. vised her not to take the new job. cannery worker9 had been laid off All State laws disqualify from bene• Four weeks later she was recalled. indefinitely because of a shortage of fits a claimant who, within the mean• Because of the definite assurance of raw materials, with the understand• ing attributed to those terms, refuses her old job in the immediate future, ing that she would be recalled. She suitable work without good cause. she was not disqualified for having was held unavailable for work be• State decisions on availability for refused the job referral;6 however, cause she had refused other tempo• work and on suitable work and good she was held unavailable for work be• rary cannery work of a kind that she cause for its refusal reveal marked cause she had elected to hold herself had done previously, that paid her differences in the policies applied to from the labor market until she was customary wage, and that would not cases of laid-off workers. recalled. have prevented her return to her reg• At the other extreme is a decision ular employer. Other workers10 who which was given in the case of a were temporarily laid off while their Temporary Lay-Offs 7 employer was retooling for a different claimant who was laid off for an type of war work were given special Availability for Work indefinite period after she had ac• cumulated 5 years' seniority with her 8 Vermont Unemployment Compensa• The availability of claimants who last employer but was notified that tion Commission, Policy and Procedure she would be recalled. She was actu• with Respect to Determination of Suitable have been laid off for only brief Work and Refusal of Referral, Octobsr 17, periods and will definitely be recalled ally recalled after about 5 1/2 weeks. 1945, pp. 2, 3. at an early date and who, therefore, During her unemployment she had 9 9972-Calif. R (Feb. 2, 1945), Ben. Ser., are not interested in other permanent Vol. 8, No. 11; see also 9267-Pa. R (Oct. work would seem less doubtful than 59289-Wis. A (March 1944), Ben. Ser., 31, 1945), Ben. Ser., Vol. 8, No. 3. In this Vol. 8, No. 3. second case, temporary work from which that of those who have been laid off 6 If this claimant had been disqualified the claimant would have been released indefinitely or for a prolonged period. for having refused work without good to return to his regular employer and But this is not always the holding. cause, she would not have been eligible which utilized the claimant's training Take, for example, the case4 of an for benefit during the week in which the and experience was held suitable, even refusal occurred and until after she had though it involved a lesser skill and paid 2 10172-Ga. A (Aug. 14, 1945), Ben. Ser., again been employed within at least 4 a lower wage, since the employment was Vol. 9, No. 1. Italics supplied. weeks and had earned wages at least for only 6 weeks. 3 Bureau of Employment Security, "Re• equal to four times her weekly benefit 109764-Ga. R (June 6, 1945), Ben. Ser., port on Special Postwar Problems of amount. The unavailability holding Vol. 8, No. 9; contra: 10172-Ga. A (Aug. Women Claimants," June 1946, p. 58. (At• merely affected the claimant's benefit 14, 1945), Ben. Ser., Vol. 9, No. 1; see also: tachment to Research and Statistics Let• rights until such time as she was reem• 9060-Maine A (Apr. 6, 1944), Ben. Ser., ter No. 120, July 15, 1946.) ployed or she removed this limitation. Vol. 8, No. 1; 9188-Ore. A (Apr. 24, 1944), 4 9865-Ala. A (June 18, 1945), Ben. Ser., 710007-Kans. A (Dec. 8, 1943), Ben. Ben. Ser., Vol. 8, No. 2; 9461-Tex. A (Dec. Vol. 8, No. 10. Ser., Vol. 8, No. 11. 15, 1944), Ben. Ser., Vol. 8, No. 5. temporary wartime releases for 4 to 6 Board of Review pointed out that13 was held not to have unreasonably re• weeks, with the understanding that "The law does not specifically require stricted her employment opportunities they would be subject to recall within that a claimant be available for per• and to be available for work.