Boeing Airplane Co. v. Commissioner of the Employment Security Department

Finley, J.

(dissenting) — The unemployment compensation act provides that the commissioner of the employment security department shall have the right to disqualify claimants for a specified period of time if they have left work voluntarily without good cause; or if, without good cause, they have refused to accept suitable work offered to them. Rem. Supp. 1949, §§ 9998-211, 9998-214. To aid him in determining whether claimants should be disqualified for either of these reasons, the commissioner is given the broad authority to consider their “prior training . . . experience and prior earnings, . . . and such other factors as the Commissioner may deem pertinent ...” Rem. Supp. 1945, § 9998-216. His decision is to be considered prima facie correct and the burden of proof is on the party attacking it. Rem. Supp. 1945, § 9998-269.

The reasonableness of this is apparent. Employees quit, or refuse work under a variety of circumstances, as a refer *367 ence to the CCH Loose Leaf Unemployment Insurance Service will readily reveal. No case is precisely like any other and in order to function at all the commissioner must be given a wide latitude in making his decisions. The language we used with reference to the department of social security in the case of Robinson v. Olzendam, 38 Wn. (2d) 30, 227 P. (2d) 732 , is particularly appropriate here:

“This court has expressed the view that courts should let administrative boards and officers work out their problems with as little judicial interference as possible. One of the primary reasons for the creation of administrative agencies is to secure the benefit of special knowledge acquired through continuous experience in difficult and complicated fields. To unduly restrict the operations of administrative bureaus would defeat the very purpose for which they have been established.”

In Morgan v. Department of Social Security, 14 Wn. (2d) 156, 183, 127 P. (2d) 686 , this court in considering the activities of the social security department commented as follows:

“ ‘The machinery required to handle such very considerable operations must necessarily be complicated, and involve endless details and adjustments. Such a task, to be successfully accomplished, must be performed by an efficient administrative department of the executive branch of the government. When such a department is functioning honestly, fairly, without fear or favor, and in accordance with the law, the less it is interfered with the better.’ ”

In the present case, Mr. Anderson, the claimant, had been working at a wage scale of $1.63 an hour. In addition, he was receiving a ten-cent hourly bonus for working on the second shift. The pay rate for the new job offered him was $1.43 an hour. It would have afforded no opportunity for him to work on the second shift and consequently no chance to earn the extra ten-cent bonus. The commissioner held that under the circumstances, Anderson was entitled to unemployment benefits. His decision concluded as follows:

“In the light of the foregoing, the fact that the claimant would have incurred a wage loss of twenty cents an hour in his basic hourly rate by accepting work which apparently would not utilize his highest skills, and in the absence of *368 any showing in the record regarding local work opportunities in his customary occupation, it is concluded that the claimant refused the offered work with good cause.”

Appellant testified that he would have accepted the new job had his pay not been cut, becáuse “a person’s got to live, I guess.” Respondent emphasizes that the only question properly before us is whether a claimant can justify either his voluntary quitting, or his refusal to accept offered work solely on the ground that the offered work would have required him to accept a reduction in pay of twenty cents an hour. Accepting this as the issue before us, it seems proper to turn to the decisions of other jurisdictions, interpreting comparable legislation relative to the complementary Federal and state program of unemployment compensation.

The same general problem confronting us has come before the various state unemployment compensation agencies innumerable times, though in a great diversity of factual contexts. In the treatise contained in Vol. 1A of the CCH Unemployment Insurance Service, the following broad statement is made:

“A slight reduction in pay to a point not below the prevailing wage scale is not considered good cause for quitting but good cause is usually found when the reduction is great, drastic, or substantial.” 1A CCH Unemployment Insurance Service 4656, par. 1975 (1950).

This observation is borne out by reference to the numerous decisions on the subject. Relatively few of these decisions have been rendered by courts of record because, quite properly, few of them have been appealed. In some states, such as Pennsylvania, agencies administering the law appear to take a strict view and are not inclined to allow benefits to an employee who has quit his job because of a reduction in his wages. But in other states, there have been decisions such as the following:

Mich. App. Bd. Dec., Dkt. B5-3683-2396, December 6, 1945, 4 CCH Unemployment Insurance Service 25,164, par. 1975.71 (1948):

“Where claimants received a 11 ‡ cut in wages without prior notification, and left for this reason, the Appeal Board *369 held ‘that this cut in wages without notification constitutes good cause for claimant’s voluntarily leaving’, and that such cause was attributable to the employer.”

N. J. Bd. of Rev. Dec., No. BR-35, 539, reported in 5 CCH Unemployment Insurance Service 33,074, par. 1975.02 (1950) :

“An appreciable decrease in the amount of an individual’s earnings, such as a reduction of 20%, is good cause for leaving employment.”

Ala. App. Trib. Dec. No. 2196, 2-1-44, reported in 1A CCH Unemployment Insurance Service 5050, par. 1975.03 (1949):

“Textile weaver who left her employment because her prior wage of 50$ an hour had been reduced to 47%$ because of lack of work and further to 40$ an hour because of a yarn shortage was held to have quit voluntarily with good cause connected with her work.”

R. I. App. No. 1640, February 5, 1942, reported in 6 CCH Unemployment Insurance Service 42,139, par. 1975.41 (1951) :

“Claimant had been working at a standard wage rate plus a piece rate basis. When some learners were taken on claimant was obliged to spend some of his time teaching these learners and so his own earnings substantially decreased. He requested an adjustment but this was refused and he left. Held that leaving because of a substantial cut in pay is a good cause for leaving. In this case, while there was no cut in wage rates, nevertheless the change in working conditions resulted in a decrease in the claimant’s weekly wage. He is therefore not required to suffer any disqualification for his leaving as he left with good cause.”

This general view is not without support in the few appellate court cases which have dealt with the subject. In Bunny’s Waffle Shop, Inc. v. California Employment Commission, 24 Cal. (2d) 735, 743, 151 P. (2d) 224 , a group of employees left their employment upon receiving a twenty-five per cent reduction in wages. The court held that this did not amount to voluntary quitting without good cause, and upheld payment of unemployment compensation benefits, using the following language:

*370 “The commission found that a twenty-five per cent wage cut imposed upon a single worker would give him good cause for leaving his work. A substantial reduction in earnings is generally regarded as good cause for leaving employment . . . [Citations of administrative decisions] and the commission acted properly in so holding in the present case. . . . [Citations of judicial opinions]”

Respondents are unable to distinguish this case except on the ground that the wage cut there involved was twenty-five per cent — a larger deduction, relatively speaking, than was involved in the case at bar. This suggests by implication that a twenty-five per cent cut in claimant’s wages might have constituted good cause for his quitting, and might have justified the commissioner’s decision that benefits should be paid to him. The same general reasoning seems to be adopted by the majority when it states, “It is undoubtedly true that an employee might be justified in voluntarily terminating his employment, if called upon to work for substantially reduced wages . . . ” But, who is best qualified to determine where the line shall be drawn? An administrative agency which handles hundreds of cases of this kind, or an appellate court, confronted with only one? I am in entire agreement with the majority when it states that “each phase would be a matter of degree and the circumstances surrounding éach case should certainly be considered by any authority called upon to determine whether or not the employee had good cause to leave his employment.” However, it is my opinion that the proper authority to make the determination is the employment security department and not a reviewing court; and that the administrative decision should not be overturned merely because such a court may feel that an error in judgment has been made, but only if the action taken has been clearly arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The commissioner’s decision in the instant case seems to me quite sound, and fully consonant with contemporary economic realities. In the present inflationary period, when many families are living up to the limit of their incomes, a wage cut of twelve per cent or more may well be considered “substantial” and *371 quite sufficient to justify a worker in refusing to continue with his job. But in any event, the decision cannot be described as arbitrary or capricious. Comparable decisions from other states, both administrative and judicial, preclude the possibility of any such characterization. I think we should let it alone.

In conclusion: There is considerable controversy in the briefs as to whether this problem ought to be considered as a case falling under Rem. Supp. 1949, § 9998-211 (that is, one involving a possible disqualification for voluntarily quitting work); or as a case within the ambit of Rem. Supp. 1949, § 9998-214 (that is, one concerned with a possible disqualification for refusal to accept suitable offered work). It seems to me that the case could properly be classed under either or both of these sections of the statute. Since the commissioner by authority of Rem. Supp. 1945, § 9998-216, is authorized to consider exactly the same factors in determining whether a claimant should be disqualified under either of them, it would appear to be immaterial that in his opinion the case was one concerned with a refusal to accept suitable offered work. His reasoning applies even if the voluntary quit section of the statute controls, and consequently, should be upheld no matter which view is taken of the matter. See the concluding paragraphs of Copper Range Co. v. Michigan Unemployment Compensation Commission, 320 Mich. 460 , 31 N. W. (2d) 692 .

I dissent.