Title: In re Loyal Order of Moose, Inc., Lodge # 1090

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

In re Loyal Order of Moose, Inc., Lodge # 1090 (2004-112); 178 Vt. 510;
872 A.2d 345

2005 VT 31

[Filed 15-Mar-2005]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                                 2005 VT 31

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-112

                             DECEMBER TERM, 2004

  In re Loyal Order of Moose, Inc.,    }	 APPEALED FROM:
  Lodge # 1090                         }
                                       }
                                       } 
                                       }      Employment Security Board
                                       } 
                                       } 
                                       }      DOCKET NO. BC-03-03-052-12

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       ¶  1.  Employer Loyal Order of Moose, Inc., Lodge #1090, appeals pro
  se from the Employment Security Board's decision charging its
  experience-rating record with a share of unemployment benefits paid to one
  of its employees.  The Board found that employer provided employee with
  irregular, as-needed, employment, and it "terminated" her after each
  assignment.  The Board thus concluded that employer was not entitled to the
  benefit of 21 V.S.A. § 1325(f)(3), which provides that the
  experience-rating record of a base-period employer shall not be charged if
  an individual's employment with that employer has not been terminated or
  reduced in hours.  We conclude that the Board misinterpreted 21 V.S.A. §
  1325(f)(3), and we therefore reverse.

       ¶  2.  Employer hired employee in 2001 to work as a part-time
  waitress and bartender on an as-needed basis.  The employee subsequently
  obtained a full-time position elsewhere, but continued to work for employer
  Moose as well.  In February 2003, the employee left her full-time job, and
  applied for unemployment benefits.  Because employer Moose was a
  base-period employer for employee, it was asked to complete a "Request for
  Separation Information" form.  On the form, employer indicated that it
  continued to employ employee, her hours had not been reduced, and she
  worked as a "spare - when needed - no hours committed."  In March 2003, the
  Department of Employment and Training notified employer that it would be
  charged for a portion of the employee's unemployment compensation benefits. 
  Employer requested a hearing, and after a hearing, an appeals referee
  concluded that employer had reduced the employee's hours, and thus, its
  experience-rating record was properly charged for its share of benefits
  paid to employee.
   
       ¶  3.  Employer appealed to the Employment Security Board.  After a
  hearing, the Board affirmed the referee's decision, concluding that
  employer should be charged because it was not entitled to the benefit of 21
  V.S.A. § 1325(f)(3), which exempts the charge where "the individual's
  employment with that employer had not been terminated or reduced in hours." 
  The Board found that employer contacted its employee when it needed a spare
  waitress or bartender, and at the end of each assignment, there was no
  guarantee that employer would contact the employee again.  Absent a regular
  schedule, the Board reasoned, the parties' employment relationship did not
  continue beyond each specific assignment, and the relationship was more
  accurately described as a termination or layoff after each assignment.  The
  Board concluded that 21 V.S.A. § 1325(f)(3) was intended to provide relief
  to employers who continued to employ individuals on the same, regular,
  consistent basis as they had before the individuals separated from other
  employers; it did not provide relief to employers, such as employer Moose,
  who provided irregular, on call, as-needed, employment.  The Board thus
  upheld the referee's decision charging employer's experience-rating record
  for a portion of the unemployment benefits paid to employee.  Employer
  appealed.

       ¶  4.  On appeal, employer argues that the Board erred in concluding
  that it was not entitled to the benefit of 21 V.S.A. § 1325(f)(3). 
  Employer asserts that it did not terminate  employee, nor did it reduce her
  hours; rather, employee's work schedule has remained steady, and her
  employment schedule is consistent with the purpose for which she was
  hired-as an "as-needed" employee.  Employer argues that the Board
  erroneously concluded that employee was "terminated" after each assignment
  because she was, and continues to be, an active employee.

       ¶  5.  On review, we will uphold the Board's decision unless it can
  be demonstrated that its findings and conclusions are erroneous.  Trombley
  v. Dep't of Employment & Training, 146 Vt. 332, 334, 503 A.2d 537, 539
  (1985).  Absent a compelling indication of error, we defer to the Board's
  interpretation of a statute that it is charged with executing.  Sec'y,
  Agency of Natural Res. v. Upper Valley Reg'l Landfill Corp., 167 Vt. 228,
  238,