The Waterbury Democrat., 1940-07-31
Unemployment Commissioners Hear
 lI9 Appeals During Month OF June
Unusual Arguments Offer ed in Claims for Pay-
 M ment of Benefits

One hundred and nine appeals involving 40 claimants were brought before the Unemployment Commissioners during the month of June. In the same period 99 appeals were decided and II others withdrawn. The examiners deci- sions were affirmed in cases, modified in {, and reversed in 43.
 In nearly half of the decisions the issue involved was one of vol- untary separation, 48 of the 99 cases falling in this category. This issue of availability or physical ability was involved in g cases and wilful misconduct in 15. Four cases were concerned with refusal of suitable employment, two each with wage credit disputes and claims for partial benefits, and one with self employment. In four cases two or more issues were involved.
 Cases presenting new situations are discussed below:
 Availability: A married woman who found it impossible to commute to work from her new home in Cobalt, 25 miles from her place of employment in Hartford, was considered to be unavailable when she expressed desire to re- main at home. Later, however, when she declared herself ready and willing to accept suitable work in Middletown or vicinity she was held available for work by Com missioner Partridge.
 A clerk-stenographer who never earned more than $14 per week and who quit to marry and keep house for her husband and her mother was held by Commissioner Odlum to be unavailable when she indicated she would not accept dob paying less than SIT per week.
 Commissioner Odlu1n also de- clared unavailable a young man, previously a die-setter, who twice failed to keep an appointment with an employment service in- terviewer and who, when finally referred to 8 prospective job, plainly indicated he was not con- cerned about obtaining work as he preferred to draw unemploy- ment benefits.
 Failure to Accept Suitable Em- ployment: Commissioner Truax ruled that a leather cutter who failed to return to his former en- ployment when urged to do so by his employer failed to accept suit able work without sufficient cause. When laid of at the Bridgeport plant for lack of work in Decem- Der, 1889 the claimant went to Lynn, Mass, where he was located by the employment service upon the employers request in February 1940. The claimant said he would be glad to return upon receipt of a promise of work whereupon the employer wrote, Report imme- diately as we have plenty of work to Eeep you going" To this mes- sage the claimant did not reply and later he advised the commis- sioner he would not appear at hearing as he was then employed. He refused to state pertinent facts in his letter, as requested by the commissioner.
 Under ordinary circumstances, the fact that Bridgeport is approximately ITO miles from the claimants home, would seem to make the offer of work unsuit- able." the commissioner said. However, it appears that the claimant previously accepted em- ployment with the appellant-em- ployer under conditions similar to those which existed at the time he was requested to return"
 In Case 23-A-40, young man who failed to accept referral to a P.W.A. job, paying SOC an hour and located IT miles from home, was held to have done so with sufficient cause when he had no means of transportation and no living quarters were available near the job.
 Voluntary Separations: An ec- centric drug clerk who had rea- son to expect discharge as @ re- suit Of his behavior was consid-