Opinion
No. 70-600
Decided March 16, 1971.
Unemployment compensation sought by claimant who had allegedly quit his employment to accept a better job. Claimant appealed a "no award" decision by referee which was affirmed by Industrial Commission.
Affirmed
1. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION — At Termination of Employment — No Offer — Better Job — Statutory Conditions — Not Satisfied. Since the testimony of petitioner established that at the time he terminated his employment with respondent employer there had not been a definite offer of employment made to him which he had accepted, the statutory conditions of quitting to accept a better job had not been satisfied and petitioner did not qualify for unemployment compensation award.
Review of the Order of The Industrial Commission
Gould, Moch and Bernick, Richard J. Bernick, for petitioner.
Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, John P. Moore, Deputy, Robert L. Harris, Assistant, for respondents Industrial Commission of Colorado (Ex-officio Unemployment Compensation Commission of Colorado) and Director of the Department of Labor and Employment of the State of Colorado.
No appearance for respondent The Valspar Corporation.
This case relates to an unemployment compensation claim asserted by the petitioner, John Roger Anderson, a former employee of The Valspar Corporation, one of the respondents. The only question before us is whether the evidence supports a "no award" decision rendered by the Referee, and affirmed by the Industrial Commission on the ground that the petitioner did not quit his job with Valspar to accept a better job.
The evidence in this case consists solely of the testimony of the petitioner himself. That testimony reveals that during a strike period at Valspar the petitioner initially left Colorado and traveled to Minnesota for personal reasons. He then returned to Colorado, but later traveled back to Minnesota. His stated reasons for making the second trip to Minnesota were that he desired to seek employment there and also that he went because of marital difficulties between him and his wife. While in Minnesota, he was advised that the strike at Valspar in Colorado was over. At that time he indicated to Valspar an intent to return to his job with it, although prior to such time he had applied for employment with Red Owl Stores, Inc., in Minnesota, and had been advised by that company that they had no immediate opening. Subsequent to this, the petitioner terminated his employment with Valspar and requested a letter of recommendation. Later he was employed by and went to work for Red Owl Stores, Inc., in Minnesota at a rate of pay which was higher than his rate of pay in the Valspar job.
Under the provisions of 1965 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 82-4-8(4) (a) and 1969 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 82-4-8(4) (g), an employee who quits his employment to accept a better job as defined by the statute is entitled to a full unemployment compensation award.
1965 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 82-4-8(6)(b)(vii), dealing with the denial of unemployment compensation awards, specifically provides that an award shall not be granted to an employee who quits to seek other work, not having first accepted an offer of other employment.
[1] The testimony of the petitioner establishes that at the time he terminated his employment with Valspar there had not been a definite offer of employment made to him which he had accepted. The most that can be said of the relationship between Red Owl Stores and petitioner is that it represented to him some possibility and hope of future employment. It had not ripened into a contract of hire.
The statutory conditions of quitting to accept a better job not having been satisfied, the Referee and the Industrial Commission properly concluded that the petitioner did not qualify for an award. The order of the Industrial Commission is affirmed.
CHIEF JUDGE SILVERSTEIN and JUDGE ENOCH concur.