The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1953-06-19

Continued from Page One)
this, regardless of whether or not
there are job opportunities avail
able.
"The first finding is so arbitrary
as to be unreasonable and should not
be upheld by this commission"
BECAUSE OF ILLNESS
20. Looking at point two of the
majority opinion against Jaycox,
Comm Root contended "the second
finding is in violation of the
specific law governing this commits
sion. Sec. 87-105-c states: lin part)
." no claimant shall be considered
Ineligible in any week of unemploy-
ment for failure to comply with the
provisions of this subsection If such
failure is due to an illness or disabil-
ity which occurs after he has register
ed for work and no suitable work has
been offered to such claimant after
the beginning of such illness or dis
ability
ITO say that the claimant was in
eligible for December II to December
Is, because he was working on his
own home, and that therefore he is in
eligible after December Is, because
he was i'll, is utter nonsense" Root |
continued. IF he was i'll from Deem
Der Is, 1852, he could not be ineligi-
bic unless job was offered him and
he refused it -"
PICKETING SERVICE
The third point of the ruling by
Castles and Mcclure, placing pre-
MUM on law violation by employers,
is of vital Importance to every wage
Garner in Montana. If it stands the
test of the courts, it means the weight
of the unemployment comp law can
be thrown in on the side of the en-
ployer in any economic struggle be-
tween labor and management, no
matter whether the strike is due to
labor law violations by the employer.
This portion of Mr.. Roots statement
is the most important part of his
dissenting opinion and should be read
and remembered by all Montana wage
earners. accordingly we are publish
ing it almost in its entirety.-EDI-
TORI.
80. | cannot help but believe that
the real and unspoken basis for the
obviously erroneous findings number
ed one and two is found in finding
number three.
For the period from January 6, !
1853, to January 27, 1853, the ref
cree found that claimant was render &
ing service as picket 'for which he
received payment averaging $500 I
Der week, and therefore, during that c
period of time was not totally unem- q
1loyed." ]
Claimant was rendering service
as a picket, it is true, and he had
been before he filed any claim at
all, although this fact is not found
as a basis for the first two findings a
If picketing were other employ =
ment and the unemployment result
ed from his failure to continue
picketing to work on his house, and y
through illness, there would be
some OASIS Tor the r1rSt two find
ings, although | believe the basis e
would be demonstrably erroneous p
The employment in question was
claimants employment as a ma a
chinist in the Manion garage. {
at was the attorney for Manion
S employer, who filed the appeal,
nd the attorney for Manion at no y
ime in the record denied that claim :.
mt was last employed there The at 7
orney, Mr.. Warden, stated that =
laimant was an employee Of Manion E
ntil the strike and was not work
ng since the strike. Under no other r
heory except that other employment
as interviewed could the first two 0
indings have any semblance or form
f validity, and the refereee found r.
o fact of other employment as such G.
asis for his first two findings, nor Y
Or the period of time covered in Ct
ne first two findings. n
"Coming now to the period covered f;
sslslsIlg1sglsE,sgss