Case Name: ARTIE S. BARNES v. THE SINGER COMPANY and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1989-03-02
Citations: 324 N.C. 213
Docket Number: No. 375A88
Parties: ARTIE S. BARNES v. THE SINGER COMPANY and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA
Judges: Justice Mitchell joins in this dissenting opinion.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 324
Pages: 213–220

Head Matter:
ARTIE S. BARNES v. THE SINGER COMPANY and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. 375A88
(Filed 2 March 1989)
Master and Servant § 108— unemployment compensation — plant moved to more distant site — voluntary leaving of job
Plaintiff in an unemployment compensation case left her work involuntarily where plaintiff commuted daily with her brother-in-law forty-four miles round trip from her home to the Singer plant in Lenoir, plaintiff had an outstanding work record, plaintiff did not own a motor vehicle and was not licensed to operate a motor vehicle, defendant Singer decided to remove its plant for business reasons eleven miles further from plaintiffs home, plaintiff worked through the last day the plant was at the original location, and plain-. tiff thereafter had no transportation to work because her brother-in-law worked for another company and could not drive her the additional eleven miles. An employee does not leave work voluntarily when the termination is caused by events beyond the employee’s control or when the acts of the employer cause the termination.
Justice Meyer dissenting.
APPEAL by plaintiff pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 90 N.C. App. 659, 369 S.E. 2d 646 (1988), which affirmed a judgment entered by Rousseau, J., at the 27 April 1987 session of Superior Court, Wilkes County, affirming the decision of the Employment Security Commission denying plaintiffs claim for unemployment compensation benefits. Heard in the Supreme Court 15 November 1988.
Legal Services of the Blue Ridge, by Louise Ashmore, and Richard Tarrier for plaintiff-appellant.
T. S. Whitaker, Chief Counsel, and James A. Haney, Staff Attorney, for Employment Security Commission of North Carolina, defendant-appellee.

Opinion:
MARTIN, Justice.
The question on this appeal is whether plaintiff is entitled to unemployment compensation. We conclude that she is and, therefore, reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The evidence is basically undisputed. It shows that plaintiff had been employed by the Singer Company for more than twelve years. Although she commuted daily with her brother-in-law forty-four miles round trip from her home in Moravian Falls to the Singer plant in Lenoir, plaintiff had an outstanding work record with Singer. Plaintiff did not own a motor vehicle and was not licensed to operate a motor vehicle. After twelve years on the job, she was earning $5.85 per hour.
For business reasons Singer decided to remove its plant to Whitlock, eleven miles farther from Moravian Falls, making plaintiffs daily commute sixty-six miles. Plaintiff worked through 25 July 1986, the last day the plant was at the Lenoir location. Thereafter plaintiff had no transportation to work because her brother-in-law worked for another company in Lenoir and could not drive her the additional eleven miles to the Singer plant at Whitlock. Although plaintiff tried to secure other transportation to the new plant, she was unable to do so. Plaintiff did not work for Singer after the plant was moved.
Upon successive reviews the superior court and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's denial of benefits to plaintiff.
No party contends that the claimant is not eligible for benefits pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 96-13. The battleground of this case is whether the claimant is disqualified for benefits under N.C.G.S. § 96-14(1).
The issues before us are whether plaintiff voluntarily quit her job with Singer and, if so, whether she did so with good cause attributable to her employer, Singer. N.C.G.S. § 96-14(1) (1988). At the threshold we note that N.C.G.S. § 96-14(1A), defining what constitutes a voluntary leaving, was effective 28 June 1988 and is not applicable to this appeal. 1987 N.C. Sess. Laws (Reg. Sess., 1988) ch. 999, § 4, 5.
The test in this jurisdiction for disqualification from unemployment benefits has two prongs: did the employee leave work voluntarily, and if so, did she do so without good cause attributable to the employer. In re Poteat v. Employment Security Comm., 319 N.C. 201, 353 S.E. 2d 219 (1987); N.C.G.S. § 96-14(1) (1988).
It is elementary that the controlling principle in statutory interpretation is that the statute must be given the meaning the legislature intended. In re Watson, 273 N.C. 629, 161 S.E. 2d 1 (1968). Where the legislature, as here, has enacted within the statute itself a guide to its interpretation, that guide is to be considered by the courts in the construction of the act. Id. The General Assembly has enacted the following guide to the interpretation of chapter 96 of the General Statutes:
As a guide to the interpretation and application of this Chapter, the public policy of this State is declared to be as follows: Economic insecurity due to unemployment is a serious menace to the health, morals, and welfare of the people of this State. Involuntary unemployment is therefore a subject of general interest and concern which requires appropriate action by the legislature to prevent its spread and to lighten its burden which now so often falls with crushing force upon the unemployed worker and his family. The achievement of social security requires protection against this greatest hazard of our economic life. This can be provided by encouraging employers to provide more stable employment and by the systematic accumulation of funds during periods of employment to provide benefits for periods of unemployment, thus maintaining purchasing power and limiting the serious social consequences of poor relief assistance. The legislature, therefore, declares that in its considered judgment the public good and the general welfare of the citizens of this State require the enactment of this meásure, under the police powers of the State, for the compulsory setting aside of unemployment reserves to be used for the benefit of persons unemployed through no fault of their own.
N.C.G.S. § 96-2 (1988).
Under this guidance, the statute must be construed to provide benefits to one who becomes involuntarily unemployed, who is physically able to work, available for work at suitable employment, and who, although actively seeking work, is unable to find such employment through no fault of her own. In re Watson, 273 N.C. 629, 161 S.E. 2d 1. Disqualification for benefits under the statute must be strictly construed in favor of the claimant. Id. The employer has the burden to show that the claimant is disqualified from receiving benefits. Intercraft Industries Corp. v. Morrison, 305 N.C. 373, 289 S.E. 2d 357 (1982). This Court must determine whether the law was properly applied to the facts. Id.
We turn first to the issue of whether plaintiff voluntarily left her employment with Singer. "Voluntary" means "[unconstrained by interference; unimpelled by another's influence; spontaneous; acting of oneself. . . . [resulting from free choice," Black's Law Dictionary 1413 (5th ed. 1979), "[a]rising from one's own free will," The American Heritage Dictionary 1436 (1980).
We hold that plaintiff left her work involuntarily. In ruling to the contrary, the Commission misapplied the law to the facts. An employee does not leave work voluntarily when the termination is caused by events beyond the employee's control or when the acts of the employer caused the termination. In re Poteat v. Employment Security Comm., 319 N.C. 201, 353 S.E. 2d 219. Here the acts of the employer in removing the plant eleven miles to Whitlock caused plaintiff to be unable to continue her employment. Singer, by moving its plant, caused plaintiffs commuting distance to be increased fifty percent and in effect destroyed plaintiff's ability to go from her home to the job site. The moving of the plant was beyond the plaintiff's control. Her leaving work was in response to the removal of the plant by Singer and not an act of her own free will. Thus, the external motivating factor causing the termination of plaintiffs employment was not of her own doing but done by Singer for its own benefit. All the evidence was to the effect that plaintiff wanted to continue to work for Singer but, despite her best efforts, could not physically or economically do so.
The policy of our state is that the compulsory reserves required by the statute "be used for the benefit of persons unemployed through no fault of their own." N.C.G.S. § 96-2. Plaintiff is such a person. The employer has failed to carry its burden under the law that plaintiff is disqualified from receiving benefits.
Other jurisdictions have reached the same result in analogous cases. E.g., Guillory v. Office of Employment Sec., 525 So. 2d 1197 (La. App. 1988) (employee forced to travel more than fifty miles round trip after employer relocated plant had "good and legal" cause for leaving work); Ross v. Rutledge, 338 S.E. 2d 178 (W.Va. 1985) (employer's removal of work site an additional distance of 19.8 miles constituted substantial unilateral change in conditions of employment creating compelling reasons for claimant's terminating employment); Bingham v. Am Screw Products, 398 Mich. 546, 248 N.W. 2d 537 (1976) (where Kentucky worker left Michigan job because of inadequate housing, he was not later disqualified for unemployment benefits when he declined job offer from the Michigan employer because the job was too far from his Kentucky residence); Matter of Smith, 267 A.D. 468, 46 N.Y.S. 2d 774 (1944) (claimant entitled to benefits when her homeworker's certificate not renewed and she had no transportation to factory thirteen miles away); Industrial Com. v. Para, 111 Colo. 69, 137 P. 2d 405 (1943) (miners entitled to unemployment benefits when mine closed by employer and work offered at another site 175 miles away).
Having resolved this appeal upon the "voluntariness" prong of the test to determine disqualification for unemployment benefits, we do not find it necessary to discuss the second prong of "good cause attributable to the employer." The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and this cause is remanded to that court for remand to the Employment Security Commission for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.