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 ular employer to resume operations. 9548, Dec. 14, 1945, unpublished.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 Cita• tions to unpublished decisions give the work"—a condition which all claim• name of the State and the official State ants must meet if they are to be number of the case.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. this period. Though these claimants manent employment and we find no Although the decisions, except those registered for temporary work, the basis whatsoever for inferring that which involve wartime labor controls Georgia Board of Review held them such was the intent. If such were the by the War Manpower Commission, do available for work, pointing out that intent every employee would be re• not always distinguish clearly be• "A claimant may properly refuse an quired, during a period of temporary tween "temporary" and "permanent" offer of work which is otherwise suit• lay-off in his regular employment, to work, it is obvious that the State ap• able if there is a definite and reason• completely disassociate himself from peals bodies, in speaking of temporary able probability that he will in a the existing employer and become a work, have had in mind stopgap em• short time be able to be reemployed free agent on the labor market. Con• ployment which the worker would ac• in his former position . . . Tempo• sidering the disruption this would cept with the expectation of leaving rary lay-offs for purposes of retool• cause, we cannot conceive of such a it as soon as he was offered reemploy• ing, stock-taking, etc., shall not be legislative intent. We believe that ment by his last employer. Similarly, regarded as permitting the worker to the legislature intended nothing more it is clear that, in using the term per• refuse otherwise suitable work for than a general availability during manent work, the appeals bodies have more than a reasonably short period each week of unemployment." referred to work for which the em• and only when the indication that he The California Appeals Board14 ployer wishes employees whom he will be reemployed at the expiration adopted a similar approach in the would have a normal expectation of of this period is clear and definite." case of a milliner who had been em• retaining so that the expense of train• (Italics supplied.) ployed in a retail establishment for ing a new employee would not obvi• When a claimant has been willing some 16 months making custom-made ously be wasted. It is in this limited to accept other work pending his re• hats when she was laid off the last of sense that the two terms, temporary call, but the employer to whom he was June 1945 because of shortage of ma• and permanent work, are used. referred was unwilling to hire tempo• terials but with the definite assurance rary workers, the claimant has been that the establishment would reopen "Suitability" of Work and "Good held to be available.11 In one deci• about the first of August. The claim• Cause" for Refusing Work sion 12 the referee recognized that the ant was actually recalled August 6. Claimants who have been laid off claimant had merely been honest in About 2 weeks after her lay-off, a pos• temporarily and who refuse other advising the prospective employer sible permanent job in a wholesale work offered by the USES may be that, if she were hired, she would house was discussed with her and, a denied benefits not only on the leave if she were offered reemploy• week later, a similar permanent job. ground that they are not "available" ment by her previous employer. She was not interested in these jobs, for work but also because they have particularly the latter, because by that refused "suitable" work without time she expected to be recalled within "good cause." One claimant was Refusal of permanent work.— a week. The Appeals Board pointed held to have had good cause for re• Claimants who have refused work for out that the acceptance of either of fusing suitable work when her re• which the employer desires perma• these jobs would have required the fusal was based on the knowledge nent employees or which would pre• claimant to relinquish her former po• that she would be recalled by a vent their return to their regular sition, which she had every reasonable former employer in 2 or 3 weeks.15 employer have also been held avail• expectation of resuming within a In another case16 a claimant who able for work. One case involved ex• short time, declaring, ". . . to require had been doing skilled work for a tile perienced loopers in a hosiery mill this claimant under penalty of dis• manufacturer for 9 years and had 4 who had been laid off temporarily qualification from benefits to sever a to 5 years' accredited seniority was and who refused unskilled work in an temporarily suspended employment laid off temporarily because of slack essential food industry in which they relationship, with attendant loss of work and given a temporary release. had had no experience and from seniority and possibly other accumu• Three days after the claimant had which they would not have been re• lated rights, where the relationship leased under wartime restrictions to has been continuous and as far as the 15Mass. 14738 RE, Jan. 31, 1946, unpub• return to their regular employer. In record discloses, entirely satisfactory lished; contra: 10638-Mass. A (Sept. 21, holding that they had good cause for to all parties for a considerable length 1945), Ben. Ser., Vol. 9, No. 7, affirmed by refusing the work offered and were of time, would unstabilize rather than Board of Review decision No. 12568-BR, available for work, the Pennsylvania unpublished. stabilize employment conditions, and 168284-Tenn. A (June 1, 1943), Ben. therefore would be contrary to one of Ser., Vol. 6, No. 12; see also 6334-Ill. R 11 9461-Tex. A (Dec. 15, 1944), Ben. Ser., the fundamental purposes of the Act." (Mar. 19, 1941), Ben. Ser., Vol. 4, No. 8; Vol. 8, No. 5; 10536-La. A (Dec. 26, 1945), 9066-Mass. A (July 27, 1944), Ben. Ser., Ben. Ser., Vol. 9, No. 6; 10702-Colo. A (Dec. In view of these facts, the claimant Vol. 8, No. 1; 9236-Mich. R (Oct. 18, 1944), 15, 1945), Ben. Ser., Vol. 9, No. 8; 10729- Ben. Ser., Vol. 8, No. 3; 10146-Tenn. R Maine A (Jan. 23, 1946), Ben. Ser., Vol. 9, 13 9018-Pa. R (Mar. 14, 1944), Ben. Ser., (June 21, 1945), Ben. Ser., Vol. 8, No. 12; No. 8; contra: 9865-Ala. A (June 18, 1945), Vol. 7, No. 12; contra: 8931-Pa. R (Apr. 10177-m. R (July 31, 1945), Ben. Ser., Ben. Ser., Vol. 8, No. 10. 6, 1944), Ben. Ser., Vol. 7, No. 11. Vol. 9, No. 1; 10249-Ill. R (May 17, 1945), 1210702-Colo. A (Dec. 15, 1945), Ben. 14 10421-Callf. R (Dec. 6,1945), Ben. Ser., Ben. Ser., Vol. 9, No. 2; 10274-Mich. A Ser., Vol. 9, No. 8. Vol. 9, Nos. 4-5. (July 25, 1945), Ben. Ser., Vol. 9, No. 2. registered with the USES and filed be recalled to work within a reason• she would be called back. In the his claim, he was offered work 18 to able time." Because the claimant in meantime, she was willing to take 20 miles from home in a cotton mill, this case lacked this definite assur• other work which used her specialized in which he had had no experience. ance, it was held that he should have experience if it would not prevent her Moreover, had he accepted this work, made himself available for other suit• return to her regular employer. The he would have lost his seniority able work during his lay-off. commissioner pointed out that the rights. On these facts, the work was claimant's restriction to work which held not suitable and the claimant Willingness To Take Temporary would permit her to return to her was not disqualified. Work regular employer was "entirely rea• Questions of both availability and When claimants have been laid off sonable," adding, "This construction suitability of work entered into the for an indefinite period with no as• tends to establish good will between decision concerning a claimant who surance of the date of recall, it is not employer and employee, as well as had been earning an average of $65 unreasonable to expect them to be stability of employment, since it al• a week as a route man for a bottling willing to take temporary work for lows an employer to retain his old, concern and was laid off temporarily another employer. Thus a group of experienced help, and permits the when a reduction in the plant's sugar weavers, union members, were laid off employee to retain the benefits of his quota caused a shut-down.17 The early in April 1945 for an indefinite seniority status, familiarity with the claimant refused to apply for jobs as period because of the expiration of job, and the higher wages oftentimes a truck driver and as a warehouse• Army contracts, although it was not received by an older employee." He man, the latter at $100 a month, be• expected that any would be perma• held the claimant available for work. cause he expected to be recalled any nently separated. During their lay• day. In view of the lower earnings in off they were referred to temporary Refusal of Permanent Work the jobs offered and the probability of work as weavers at standard rates for Claimants whose lay-off is pro• his recall to his former position, those a second company. In this case19 an longed or whose prospects of recall jobs were held not suitable. He was agreement had been reached between may be indefinite and who refuse an also held available for work. the USES, the prospective employer, offer of permanent work have been These decisions on the suitability of and the claimants' union that the disqualified for refusing suitable work work turn on the suitability of the regular employer should have priority without good cause or held unavail• work in view of the lower wages, the when he wished his old employees able for work. In such cases the pros• different skills required, the length of back. The claimants were informed pects of recall may apply to all indi• unemployment, and prospects of re• of this agreement. They refused the viduals or to a particular claimant.21 call. The decisions reviewed do not, temporary work because they feared Thus a claimant employed as assem• however, include claimants who have its acceptance would jeopardize their bler by a radio manufacturer for refused work during a purely seasonal insurance, their seniority rights, and about 4 1/2 years at 80 cents an hour lay-off. In such cases the negligible their vacation pay. In this case, was laid off the last of August 1945 prospect of obtaining work in the there was no provision in the agree• because of lack of work. About 2 claimant's usual occupation fre• ments between local employers and months later she refused a referral quently is given great weight in de• the union which would prohibit em• as an assembler of pens at a start• termining the suitability of work ployees temporarily laid off by one ing wage of 75 cents an hour because which the claimant has refused. employer from working for another. the wage was too low and because The Pennsylvania Board of Review she expected to be recalled by her held that these claimants had refused last employer, although she could Indefinite Lay-Offs suitable work without good cause and give no definite date. About 2 1/2 Some State appeals bodies make a that they were unavailable for work. months later she was reemployed by clear distinction between claimants Claimants who have indicated their her former employer at 88 cents an who have been temporarily laid off willingness to take temporary work hour. Because she had been unem• with definite assurance of recall and during their lay-off have been held ployed 8 weeks when she refused the those whose recall is uncertain or available for work. Thus a fur fin• referral, had no immediate prospects postponed indefinitely. As one ref• isher20 of 22 years' experience had of employment, and had made no eree18 pointed out, "We have repeat• worked 9 months for her last em• effort to look for work on her own edly held that a claimant is justified ployer as head finisher when she had initiative, she was held to have been in holding himself available for one had to leave because of illness. About unavailable for work. employer only in case of a shut-down 5 weeks later, when she had recov• Another claimant22 also had worked in the plant due to an industrial acci• ered, she registered for work. Al• though her own position had been as• 21 Ill. 46-RD-567, Jan. 29, 1946, unpub• dent or a temporary halt in the work lished, affirmed by Board of Review de• for other reasons provided it is definite signed to another, she had been cision No. 46-BRD-332, Apr. 24, 1946, and certain that said employee will assured that, when the season opened, unpublished. 22Ill. 46-RD-902, Feb. 18, 1946, unpub• 1710513-Ark. A (Dec. 19, 1945), Ben. 199017-Pa. R (Aug. 15, 1944), Ben. Ser., lished, affirmed by Board of Review deci• Ser., Vol. 9, No. 6, affirmed by Board of Vol. 7, No. 12. sion No. 46-BRD-288, Mar. 29, 1946, un• Review decision No. 340-BR, unpublished. 208953-Conn. R (May 23, 1944), Ben. published, on the ground that the appeal 189222-Kans. A (July 17, 1944), Ben. Ser., Ser., Vol. 7, No. 12; see also 10087-Ga. A was filed after the expiration of the Vol. 8, No. 3. (June 19, 1945). Ben. Ser., Vol. 8. No. 12. statutory time limit for filing appeals. for a radio manufacturer as an as• the claimants had been out of work work in keeping with his physical sembler and solderer at 80 cents an less than 1 month, they indicated that ability. In view of the length of this hour, when she was laid off the mid• they wished to wait for their former claimant's unemployment, he was dis• dle of August 1945 after 3 to 4 years' work. At the referee's hearing, the qualified for having refused suitable service. At the time of her lay-off employer's personnel director testi• work without good cause. the claimant was assured she would fied that new work had not developed be called back as soon as the company as anticipated, that it was unlikely Information Concerning the reconverted and could get materials. that employees not then recalled The company sent her three letters would be rehired within 30 days, and Duration of the Lay-Off dated October 2, October 29, and No• that, in fact, no definite assurance The appealed benefit decisions re• vember 30, informing her that she could be given when these claimants viewed contain little direct informa• would be reemployed as soon as it would be called back. This was the tion from the employer concerning could get the necessary materials. first information given them regard• the duration of the lay-off. In many The last letter indicated that the ing the slowing up of recalls. In view cases, none appears. In a few cases, situation was improving and that, if of the short time between their lay-off the only information on this point improvement continued, the company and their statement that they wanted apparently available to the appeals hoped to have all employees to whom to wait for their former work, their bodies was that given by the claim• the letter was sent back at work with• reasonable expectation of an early re• ant's union representative.26 in 30 days. Thirteen days later the call prior to the date of the hearing, The importance of official informa• claimant was recalled by this em• and the exceptionally favorable con• tion from the employer, both to laid- ployer at 88 cents an hour. Just after ditions of their employment, the ref• off workers and to the State employ• the claimant had received the second eree held that other work was not ment security agency, is illustrated by letter, when she had been unemployed suitable for them at the time the ini• the case of a claimant27 who, about 10 1/2weeks , she refused a referral to tial disqualification was imposed and a month after his V-day lay-off, re• another radio manufacturer for that they were available for work up fused a referral to similar work in similar work at 68 cents an hour be• until the date of the hearing. How• another plant because he said, judg• cause the wage was too low and she ever, because of the uncertainty of the ing from the way his foreman talked, expected to return to her regular em• claimants' recall brought out at the he would soon be back at work with ployer. Since the prevailing wage for hearing and their restrictions, he held his former employer. The company's this type of work ranged from 64 to them unavailable for work from this employment manager testified, how• 90 cents an hour, she was held to have date until they might remove their ever, that no foreman was authorized had good cause for refusing this work. limitations. to indicate possibilities of recall be• Although the appeals body recog• The definiteness of reemployment cause even the employment office did nized that the claimant had "some not only may depend on the employ• not have any idea exactly how soon prospects" of recall, those were con• er's plans for resumption of work but the men would be back at work. Un• sidered not "sufficiently definite and also may vary with the prospects for der these conditions, the claimant immediate." However, because she recall of an individual claimant be• was held to have refused suitable had not been actively looking for cause of his low seniority rank or work without good cause. work in view of her indefinite pros• other factors. Thus a 69-year-old A somewhat similar case involved pects of reemployment, she was held miner,25 who had been engaged in coal a group of shipyard workers28 who unavailable for work and hence in• mining all his life, was laid off in a were laid off early in February 1945 eligible for benefits. reduction of force because the em• after 1 to 2 years' employment in the In another plant some 1,300 work• ployer wished to retain the younger electrical department. When they ers, including the claimants,23 were and more able-bodied men. When were laid off, their leader man told involved in a "reconversion lay-off" this claimant went back to his em• them that they would be reemployed while the company obtained releases ployer to see about his chances of in 4 to 8 weeks and they were given from the Government for materials work, he was told that no work was temporary releases. About 2 weeks needed for its civilian production and available and that he would be called after their lay-off the claimants confirmed orders already received. when he was needed. He did not signed statements that they were not The claimants averaged 2 years' em• know when his employer planned to interested in other work as they ex• ployment with this company, had ac• reopen the mine or when to expect pected to return soon to their last cumulated seniority, had acquired a reemployment. None of the other employer. Later, the local USES rep• skill which was not locally usable mines would employ him because he resentative questioned the employer elsewhere, and had been receiving was capable of only light work. Ap• and was informed that this yard did higher wages than they could reason• proximately 4 1/2month s after his lay• not expect to hire any one in its elec- ably expect to obtain elsewhere. off, he failed to apply for a job as a When these employees were laid off, porter at 60 to 65 cents an hour in a 269066-Mass. A (July 27, 1944), Ben. Ser., Vol. 8, No. 1; Md. 8958, Dec. 27, 1945, they were told that they would be plant which would have assigned him unpublished. recalled in order of seniority.24 After 27 Mich. B5-7920, Dec. 5, 1945, unpub• their seniority until they refuse an offer lished. 2310499-Tenn. A (Nov. 30, 1945), Ben. to return to their former work. 28 9762-Fla. A (Apr. 13, 1945), Ben. Ser., Ser., Vol. 9, Nos. 4-5. 25 10432-Ill. R (July 31, 1945), Ben. Ser., Vol. 8, No. 9; see also 10499-Tenn. A (Nov. 24In this plant, all employees retain Vol. 9, Nos. 4-5. 30, 1945), Ben. Ser., Vol. 9, Nos. 4-5. trical department for 90 days. Ap• available for work or disqualified for ers who, the employer reports, will be parently, this new development was refusing suitable work without good recalled within a reasonable period. not brought to the claimants' atten• cause. These two policies have im• Benefits are not denied to a claimant tion. The claimants, who had pre• portant implications for both the merely because he desires to resume viously drawn benefits, were then held claimant and his employer. within a short period a relationship unavailable for work and ineligible that has proved satisfactory and pre• for benefits. They appealed. At the Policy Implications sumably promises more security of referee's hearing early in April a com• The automatic policy of holding un• employment and greater chances of pany official testified that his com• available for work all claimants who advancement than he probably could pany might never reemploy these are awaiting recall by their last em• obtain as a new employee in another claimants and that in any case there ployer reduces potential charges on plant. Moreover, the suitability of were no prospects for reemployment the account of a claimant's last em• any work he may refuse is considered before the following August or Sep• ployer and also on the unemployment in the light of his prospects of a re• tember. When the claimants heard insurance fund. It accomplishes this, call. The employer has greater cer• this, they indicated their willingness however, by an unduly restrictive in• tainty that his regular and trained to take other suitable work when it terpretation of "available" for work. workers will be available when he re• was offered them. This official also The practical result for the claimant sumes production. To the extent testified that when the claimants is a denial of benefits which places that old employees return, labor turn• were laid off, no effort had been made economic pressure on him to sever an over, with its expense both to the to advise them of their future pros• employment relationship, perhaps of employee and the employer, is re• pects of work with his company. Be• years' standing, which has proved duced. Thus it tends to promote cause the leader man's statement was satisfactory to both the worker and stability of employment—the ex• supported by the temporary release his employer. pressed purpose of many State unem• given the claimants, they were consid• Although a denial of benefits may ployment insurance laws. ered to have been justified in expect• be to an employer's immediate ad• ing to be recalled. The referee held vantage by preventing a charge Implementing the Policy them available for work and eligible against his account and a later pos• If claimants who have a reasonable for benefits because of the manner of sible adverse effect on his experience prospect of recall within a reason• their lay-off and the temporary re• rating, it is doubtful whether either able period are to be considered lease given them. By contrast, in an• the claimant or his employer benefits available for work and are not to be other case29 in which the claimant's in the long run. If the claimant disqualified automatically for refus• employer had filed a statement that yields to the financial pressure re• ing other work, it is necessary to de• there was no certainty that he would sulting from a denial of benefit, he termine the circumstances in which be able to reemploy this particular may take a similar job in another a claimant will continue to be held employee, the claimant was held un• establishment where he is less famil• available and the conditions under available for work because, in the ab• iar with the work and, therefore, may which he may refuse proffered work. sence of any assurance as to his recall, be less likely to make good, where his The probable duration of a lay-off he should have made himself avail• chances of promotion may be less fav• can be known only to the employer. able for other work. orable, and where, as a newcomer, he Consequently, employers should ad• may be among the first laid off if the vise the State employment security Policy Relating to Claimants plant has to reduce its force. He agency and the USES of the probable may have to accept another type of duration of a lay-off or should make Awaiting Recall work, with loss of an opportunity to every effort to give their best esti• The decisions cited above illustrate use special skills and a resulting re• mate when this is requested. When the contrasts in existing policy con• duction in wages. If claimants yield the outlook for recall changes, these cerning claimants who expect to be to this pressure after a shut-down, an agencies should be currently in• recalled by their last employer. employer will have to replace experi• formed of the altered prospects. These fall into two main groups. On enced employees, incurring expense This information will be of great im• the one hand, a rule of thumb auto• for selecting, hiring, and training new portance in determining whether it matically holds claimants unavailable workers and for firing and replacing would be reasonable to expect the for work because they expect to be those who do not prove satisfactory. claimant to accept temporary or per• recalled, regardless of the immediacy In short, this policy increases insta• manent work, if it is otherwise suit• or certainty of the recall and their bility of employment and labor turn• able. Employees also should be willingness to take temporary work. over and their attendant social and currently and officially advised of the On the other hand, consideration is financial costs. anticipated length of their lay-off in given to the probable duration of the By. contrast, the second policy, order that they may decide whether lay-off, the certainty of recall, and which considers the claimant's pros• to take temporary or permanent the claimants' readiness to take tem• pects of a recall, not only is consistent work elsewhere. If employees have porary work, before they are held un- with the purpose of the availability been given incorrect information un• 29 9222-Kans. A (July 17, 1944), Ben. Ser., requirement but also helps to stabi• officially or have reasonable grounds Vol. 8, No. 3; see also 10499-Tenn. A (Nov. lize employment by permitting the for expecting to be recalled within a 30, 1945), Ben. Ser., Vol. 9, Nos. 4-5. payment of benefits to laid-off work• reasonable time, they may be paid benefits, as in some of the decisions any other work during his lay-off. On expected to take suitable temporary reviewed, even though management the other hand, when the refusal is work during the shut-down, and may not expect to reemploy them in based on the claimant's objection to should not be denied benefits for re• the near future. the particular job offered him, it must fusing permanent work. However, If it is unlikely that all employees be determined whether the work as the lay-off becomes more extended will be rehired, because work in some meets the normal criteria of suitable without any improvement in the departments is to be curtailed or dis• work; if it is suitable, the claimant prospects of a return, claimants may continued or a general reduction in reasonably may be disqualified for reasonably be expected to take per• force is anticipated, it would also be having refused suitable work without manent work elsewhere, particularly helpful if both the employees affected good cause. the most recent employees and those and the State employment security Special situations may modify this whose skills and aptitudes are most agency were advised. If employees general result. One such situation is readily transferable. Likewise it is knew that they definitely would not when a claimant has been led by a reasonable to expect that claimants be recalled or that their recall were company representative to believe in• whose lay-off is indefinite, because of improbable, they could plan to take correctly that he will be recalled and, the employer's uncertainty whether other work. If names of such em• acting on this information, has re• he will reopen, should be prepared to ployees were forwarded to the local fused suitable work that he otherwise accept permanent suitable employ• employment office and the State em• might have accepted. A somewhat ment elsewhere. Such claimants ployment security agency, it would be similar situation is presented by may reasonably be held unavailable helpful in deciding whether these claimants who were told at the time for work if their refusal of work is claimants reasonably might be ex• of the lay-off that they would be re• based on their unwillingness to take pected to take other suitable perma• called but who have not been informed any other work while they are await• nent work and, if they refuse, whether of changes that have postponed their ing recall. If the work refused meets they should be held unavailable for return. In such cases the claimant the normal standards of suitable work or disqualified for having re• may reasonably be held to have had work, they may reasonably be dis• fused suitable work without good good cause for refusing otherwise qualified for refusing suitable work cause. Without such information, suitable work. A different question is without good cause unless, of course, the State agency may have to assume presented by a claimant who has been special facts should alter the decision. that claimants have an equal chance employed for only a brief period by of being called back, with the result his last employer and refuses an offer that benefits may be paid to some of an equally good and regular em• Conclusion whom it is definitely planned not to ployment because he expects to be re• Realization that the common in• recall. called. Such a claimant reasonably terests of the claimant and his em• may be disqualified for having refused ployer are served by a policy of not Temporary lay-offs.—The employ• suitable work. denying unemployment benefits au• er's estimate of the probable duration Claimants who will not be recalled tomatically to all claimants who re• of a lay-off and the prospects of re• after a temporary lay-off reasonably port that they will be called back by call for an individual claimant deter• may be expected to take other perma• their last employer would lead to a mine whether or not the claimant nent suitable work. Claimants who reconsideration of the policy now in• should be expected to take temporary refuse this may reasonably be dis• dicated in many decisions concerning or permanent work elsewhere during qualified in the same manner as other such claimants. his lay-off, provided, of course, that employees who refuse suitable work If the policy is adopted that a claim• the employee has been given the same without good cause. ant's willingness to take temporary information. The dividing point at which claim• work is sufficient to meet the require• Claimants who, the employer re• ants may be expected to take perma• ment of being available for work, ports, will be recalled within a rela• nent work or will be denied benefits claimants who have been laid off tem• tively brief period may reasonably be for refusing it is a matter for admin• porarily and will definitely be re• expected to refuse an offer of work istrative discretion. called within a reasonable period may open only to permanent employees. reasonably refuse permanent and Based on a refusal of such work, a Indefinite lay-offs.—Lay-offs may otherwise suitable work without in• disqualification for having refused be indefinite because the employer curring a disqualification for having suitable work without good cause or a cannot estimate the date on which he refused suitable work without good holding of unavailability would ap• will resume operations, even though cause or without being held unavail• pear unreasonable. In such cases, he confidently expects to do so, or be• able for work under this policy. As willingness to take temporary suitable cause he is uncertain whether he will the lay-off becomes more extended, it work may be sufficient to establish reopen a particular department or would be reasonable to expect these availability, even though local em• the entire plant. When policy con• claimants to accept other suitable ployers may be unwilling to hire tem• cerning laid-off workers is based on permanent work, especially the newer porary help. Refusal of suitable tem• their prospects of being recalled, employees and those whose skills can porary work, however, may render the claimants who have been laid off for be used most readily in other local claimant unavailable for work, if he an indefinite period with the cer• work. indicates that he is not interested in tainty of recall may reasonably be By contrast, under this policy, claimants who will not be called back lay-off, both to their employees and or who have been laid off indefinitely to the State employment security because of the company's uncertain agency. Without this information, future plans may be expected to ac• employees cannot decide intelligently cept other suitable permanent work. whether to accept temporary or per• If the work is suitable and if the re• manent work elsewhere and the State fusal is based on objections to the job employment security agencies are itself, claimants may reasonably be working in the dark. On the one disqualified for having refused suit• hand, they may deny benefits to able work. However, if the refusal is claimants who will be recalled in the based on unwillingness to take any early future; on the other, they may work while awaiting recall, they may pay benefits to claimants on the basis reasonably be held unavailable for of uninformed statements of claim• work. ants and foremen, even though man• The application of a policy that agement does not expect to rehire makes it possible to pay benefits to these claimants. claimants with definite prospects of To the extent that employers wish a recall within a reasonable time will to increase the likelihood that their increase the employer's assurance laid-off workers will return when that his experienced employees can needed, they can facilitate the work afford to wait until he again has work of their State employment security for them. Its application depends, agency in holding these claimants however, not only on a reconsidera• eligible for benefits by advising both tion of policy by some State appeal their employees and the agency of bodies but also on the extent to which the anticipated length of a lay-off employers furnish information con• and of individual claimants' prospects cerning the probable duration of a for recall.