. .

- c



## TEE 

# A~TOIINEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

Hon. William

H. Farmr Opinion. NO. !d’ +l33 Administrator Texas Employment

Commission Re: Benefiteligibility 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 opinionon 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 benefiteligibilityconditionsfor the receipt of unemployment compensation

that certain

amounts of sagesbe "received" by the claimant

within certaincalendar quarters. Your letter statesthe following facts: 11 0 0 0 The claimant

has a base period consisting of the third and fourthquarters of 1955 and the first and secondquartersof 1956. Her emplo r has submitted wage reportsreflectin

f r that she earned 827.00 in the third quarter of 1955, 49.50 in the fourth quarterof 1955, no earningsin the first quarterof 1956 and $123.00in the secondquarter of 1956, while the $827.00reported in the third quarter of 1955 was earnedduring this period, the clainmnt

did not pick up one $97.00 check included in this amountuntil Saturday, October1, 1955, although this checkwas 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 receivedthe $97.00 checkavailable to her and dated September 30, in the third quarterof 1955, does she smet the requirements of the subsection of the Act mentioned? "In the event your answer is to the effect that the $97.00was receivedin the third quarter of 1955 and she therefore

receivedonly $49.50 in the fourthquarterof 1955, could the claimant be said to have met the requirements of paragraph three of subsection 4(e) of the Act under the 'deminimis" rule?"-.. -

. -

Hon. William

H. Farmer,

page 2 (IN-133)

Paragraph

three of subsection



## 4(e) of the Texas UnemploymentCompensation

Act, is codifird

as Artiole 5221b-2(e)(3) of Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes,

ae amended,

and provides

that an unemployed

individual shallbe eligible

to receivebenefits with respectto 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 quartersin his base period," (Underscoring added) The historyof this legislation revealsthat it was enactedin 

## 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 presentform as above set forth. The Acts of 1939, 46th Iagislature,

p. 437, ch. 2, providedthat: "se, 4. An unemployed individual

shall be eligible

to receivebenefits with respectto any benefitperiod 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 times his benefit amount." "p (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 sectionof the Act. In-e1 v. Esag 68 A. 2d 129, 135 Corm. 666, the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, in construing

an Act similarto our Unemployment

Compensation

Act, statedas follows: "Theplaintiff

filed a claim for unemployment benefits. He worked for a sfngleemployerfrom Warch 22, 1948, to June 15, 1948, and earned $52 for the week ending&rch 27 and a total of $892.12 betweenthat 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 GeneralHon. MLlliamIL Farmer,page 3 (wl33)

Statutes,

Rev* 1949, B 7507,provided: IAn unemployed individual

shallbe eligible

to receivebenefits with reapeotto 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 wageswith respectto 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 commonusage, DpaidP does not mean Qxayable'. sPaid is the past tense of the verb 'topays, and swages paid* are wages that actually have been paid.

"Apparently

there are no reported judicialdecisionson the question. An administratorfs decision, reportedin 3 CCH Unemployment Ins, Serv,,Fla. Per. 8103.04,

held that a claimant who earnedwages in two quartersof his base periodbut received wages in only one quarter of the periodwas ineligible for benefits. AnotheradministratorPs decision,

reportedin 6 CCH Unemployment

Ins, Serv,,Pa, Par, 8187,&O, held that the law doss **not** permit the allocation of wages to the quarterthey were earnedbut restricts it to the quarterthey were paid,

"I4s conclude

that the plaintiff

was not eligible for benefits,"
In 75 C.J.S.,

ppO 643-k!,.!+, it is statedthat: "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 commonand approved usage, Veceivedr means obtained by physical

delivery

fromHon. !+llliam H. Farmer,

page 4 (w-133)

another,

and the oonorptthat something has been receivedwhen it is deposited in the =il is an artificial oonoept

whioh is not in aooordanoe with the general

and commonunderstanding of the term. OOOn In 36 !&rdsand Phrases, p0 446, it is said that-s "To receive

means to get by a transfer as to receivea gift, to receivea letter,or to receive money, and involves an actualreceipt." Blacrkts

Law Distionary,

4th edition,

definesthe word "receivee" as: "To take into possession and aontrol;

accept custodyof," Our courtshave 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 commonmeaning,in the absenceof a legislative intentto the contrary, a9 166 8,%8X

Ms find no decisionof 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 commonand generally accepted

meaning,

and that to meet the requirements of said subsection of the Act an employee must have Wreceived.pE the wages requiredfor benefiteligibility,

'%s are further of the opinionthat the claimant rscsfvedin the fourthquarterthe $97,00 eheok 'or wages earned in the third quarter, and thereby

received

within her baee periodan 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 quartersin 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 bsneffteligibility, 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 October1, 1955, for wages earned In the third quarter of 1955, received the check October1, 1955, o.~ in the fourthquarter, although

the oheckwas 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: OPINIONCOMMITTEE H. Grady Chandler, Chairman L. P. Lollar Grundy Williams J. L. Smith ;yIEWED FOR TIIE

ATTORNEY

GENERAL Geo. P, Blackburn