. . 

- c 

TEE A~TOIINEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

Hon. William H. Farmr Opinion. NO. !d’+l33 

Administrator 

Texas Employment Commission Re: Benefit eligibility conditions 

Austin, Texas for receipt of unemployment 

compensation by employee under 

subsection 4(e) of the Texas 

Unemployment Compensation Act 

codified as Article 5221b-2(e) 

Dear Mro Farmer: Vernones Annotated Civil Statuies, 

You have requested our opinion on subsection 4(e) of the Texas 

Unemployment Conpensation Act, codified as Article 522lb-2(e), Vernon's 

Civil Statutes, which prescribes as one of the benefit eligibility conditions for the receipt of unemployment compensation that certain amounts 

of sages be "received" by the claimant within certain calendar quarters. 

Your letter states the following facts: 

11 0 0 0 The claimant has a base period consisting of 

the third and fourth quarters of 1955 and the first and 

second quarters of 1956. Her emplo r has submitted wage 

reports reflectin 

f 

that she earned r 827.00 in the third 

quarter of 1955, 49.50 in the fourth quarter of 1955, 

no earnings in the first quarter of 1956 and $123.00 in 

the second quarter of 1956, while the $827.00 reported 

in the third quarter of 1955 was earned during this period, 

the clainmnt did not pick up one $97.00 check included 

in this amount until Saturday, October 1, 1955, although 

this check was dated September 30 and was available to 

her on that date had she asked for it," 

You ask the following questions: 

"If it is ruled that the olaimant received the 

$97.00 check available to her and dated September 30, 

in the third quarter of 1955, does she smet the requirements of the subsection of the Act mentioned? 

"In the event your answer is to the effect that the 

$97.00 was received in the third quarter of 1955 and she 

therefore received only $49.50 in the fourth quarter of 

1955, could the claimant be said to have met the requirements of paragraph three of subsection 4(e) of the Act 

under the 'de minimis" rule?" 
-.. - 

. - 

Hon. William H. Farmer, page 2 (IN-133) 

Paragraph three of subsection 4(e) of the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act, is codifird as Artiole 5221b-2(e) (3) of Vernon's Annotated 

Civil Statutes, ae amended, and provides that an unemployed individual 

shall be eligible to receive benefits with respect to any benefit period 

only if the Commission finds that he has: 

"Within his base period m wages for unemployment by employers in an amount equal to or exceeding Four Hundred Fifty Dollars ($450)s provided that he 

has received wages equal to or in excess of Fifty 

Dollars ($50) in each of three (3) or more of the 

quarters in his base period," (Underscoring added) 

The history of this legislation reveals that it was enacted in 

1936 by the 44th Legislature, Third Called Session, The subsection of the 

Abt with which we are here concerned was amended several times before 

taking its present form as above set forth. The Acts of 1939, 46th Iagislature, p. 437, ch. 2, provided that: 

"se, 4. An unemployed individual shall be 

eligible to receive benefits with respect to any 

benefit period only if the Commission finds that: 

11. . . 

"cd). e 0 he baswfthinhis baueperiodm 

wages from e loyment by employers equal to not less 

than eight (8 "p times his benefit amount." 

(Undersaoring added) 

By Acts, 1943, 48th Legislature, p* 585, ah. 343, this subsection was amended by substituting the word "receivedv for the word "earned". 

The Legislature by this substitution recogniaed the difference betueen 

"earned" and Rreoeivedn, Since this amendment, the word "received" has 

continued to be used in this section of the Act. 

In-e1 v. Esag 68 A. 2d 129, 135 Corm. 666, the Supreme 

Court of Errors of Connecticut, in construing an Act similar to our Unemployment Compensation Act, stated as follows: 

"The plaintiff filed a claim for unemployment 

benefits. He worked for a sfngle employer from 

Warch 22, 1948, to June 15, 1948, and earned $52 

for the week ending &rch 27 and a total of $892.12 

between that date and June 15, the date of separation from employment. His wages for the week ending 

March 27 were paid to him on April 2 by check. 

Section 13891 of the 1947 Supplement to the General 
Hon. MLlliam IL Farmer, page 3 (wl33) 

Statutes, Rev* 1949, B 7507, provided: IAn unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive benefits 

with reapeot to any week, only if it shall have km 

found that * * * (3) ha haeken paid wages during 

the base period of his current benefit year in an 

amount at least equal to two hundred and forty 

dollars, including only wages with respect to which 

contributions have been paid or are payable, some 

part of which amount has been paid in at least two 

different calendar quarters of such base period-v 

The administrator denied the claim for benefits on 

the ground that all of the wages had been paid in 

one calendar quarter only, 

"In common usage, DpaidP does not mean Qxayable'. 

sPaid is the past tense of the verb 'to pays, and 

swages paid* are wages that actually have been paid. 

"Apparently there are no reported judicial decisions on the question. An administratorfs decision, 

reported in 3 CCH Unemployment Ins, Serv,, Fla. Per. 

8103.04, held that a claimant who earned wages in two 

quarters of his base period but received wages in only 

one quarter of the period was ineligible for benefits. 

Another administratorPs decision, reported in 6 CCH 

Unemployment Ins, Serv,, Pa, Par, 8187,&O, held that 

the law doss not permit the allocation of wages to 

the quarter they were earned but restricts it to the 

quarter they were paid, 

"I4s conclude that the plaintiff was not eligible 

for benefits," 

In 75 C.J.S., ppO 643-k!,.!+, it is stated that: 

"The word 'received" is O.e an ambiguous, relative term, and its meaning or signification may differ 

according to the circumstances and connection in which 

it is employed. It has no tenses, and it makes no 

distinction of time, and it may or may not relate to 

a past occurrence. In its common and approved usage, 

Veceivedr means obtained by physical delivery from 
Hon. !+llliam H. Farmer, page 4 (w-133) 

another, and the oonorpt that something has been received when it is deposited in the =il is an artificial oonoept whioh is not in aooordanoe with the 

general and common understanding of the term. OOOn 

In 36 !&rds and Phrases, p0 446, it is said that-s 

"To receive means to get by a transfer as to 

receive a gift, to receive a letter, or to receive 

money, and involves an actual receipt." 

Blacrkts Law Distionary, 4th edition, defines the word "receivee" 

as: "To take into possession and aontrol; accept custody of," 

Our courts have held that words in a statute are to be given 

It has also been held that words in a statute are to be given 

their common meaning, in the absence of a legislative intent to the 

contrary, a9 166 8,%8X 

Ms find no decision of our courts interpreting the term "wages 

received", However, the Legislature in substituting the word "receivedY' 

for the word "earned" in the subsection of the Act with which we are here 

concerned certainly recognized that the two words were of a different 

meaning, 

bb are of the opinion that the Legislature used the word 

*reeeivedse in subsection s;(e) of the Texas Unemployment Compensation AE+, 

in its common and generally accepted meaning, and that to meet the requirements of said subsection of the Act an employee must have Wreceived.pE the 

wages required for benefit eligibility, 

'%s are further of the opinion that the claimant rscsfved in the 

fourth quarter the $97,00 eheok 'or wages earned in the third quarter, and 

thereby received within her baee period an smount equal to or exceeding 

Four Hundred Fifty Dollars ($450,00), and received wages equal to or in 

excess of Fifty Dollars ($5O,OO) in each of three (3) of tbe quarters in 

her base period. Claimant has therefore met the requirements of paragraph 

three of subsection 4(e) of the Act, 

Inaemuah as claimant has met the requirements of subsection 4(e) 

of the Act as to bsnefft eligibility, the applicability of the svde minimiss' 

rule to such subsection is moot, 
_ .- 

Hon. William H. Farmer, page 5 (WW-133) 

An employee who epiokad up* a $97.00 chack 

October 1, 1955, for wages earned In the third quarter of 1955, received the check October 1, 1955, o.~ 

in the fourth quarter, although the oheck was dated 

September 30, 1955, and was available to such employee 

on that date had she asked for it. The words "received 

wages" in subsection k(e) of the Texas Unemployment 

Compensation Act concernfng benefit eligibility mean 

wages actually '+eceivedw by the employee and do not 

mean wages "earnedss. 

Very truly yours, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General 

B&Lp&ALh 

F. C. Jack Goodman 

Assistant 

FCJG:gs 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

H. Grady Chandler, Chairman 

L. P. Lollar 

Grundy Williams 

J. L. Smith 

;yIEWED FOR TIIE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Geo. P, Blackburn