Opinion
Oct. 6, 1974.
Editorial Note:
This case has been marked 'not for publication' by the court.
Page 424
Franklin C. Douglas, Denver, for petitioner.
John P. Moore, Atty. Gen., John E. Bush, Deputy Atty. Gen., Robert L. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondent Industrial Commission of Colo. (Ex-officio Unemployment Compensation Commission of Colo.)
SILVERSTEIN, Chief Judge.
Claimant, E. A. Jiminez, sought unemployment compensation when he was laid off by his employer, Robinson Brick and Tile Co., for lack of work. A deputy of the Division of Employment determined that claimant was entitled to a full award. The employer objected on the ground that claimant had refused to accept an offer of comparable employment. A hearing was held before a referee who found that, although claimant's separation entitled him to a full award, he had failed to accept a comparable job at the same rate of pay, and, under 1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 82--4--8(6)(c)(i), and 1971 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 82--4--8(2)(b)(i), was therefore disqualified from the receipt of benefits for a period of thirteen weeks. On review the Industrial Commission affirmed the referee. We affirm the final order of the Commission.
At the hearing neither party was represented by counsel. The employer's personnel manager testified that claimant had been laid off from work at the employer's No. 1 plant, and eleven days later was offered an identical job at its No. 2 plant, which claimant accepted. However, on the following morning, when he was to report to work, he called and advised the witness that he had been in an accident and couldn't get to work because his car had been wrecked and he had no transportation. The above facts are undisputed.
However, there is a conflict as to the balance of the telephone conversation. The personnel manager testified that claimant then stated he would not take the job at plant No. 2, but would wait for an opening at plant No. 1. Claimant testified that he merely stated he would prefer a job at plant No. 1. He further testified that as soon as his car was repaired he reported to plant No. 2, and found that the job had been filled. Within three weeks he was re-hired at plant No. 1.
On this conflicting evidence the Commission found that claimant had refused the job. Since this finding is supported by the evidence, the resulting decision will not be overturned. Morrison Road Bar v. Industrial Commission, 138 Colo. 16, 328 P.2d 1076; McGinn v. Industrial Commission, 31 Colo.App. 6, 496 P.2d 1080.
Claimant also asserts that his re-hiring by his employer somehow invalidates the final order of the Commission. We find nothing in the Unemployment Compensation Act (C.R.S.1963, 82--1--1 et seq.) which supports this contention.
Order affirmed.
COYTE and PIERCE, JJ., concur.