Case Name: STATE ex rel. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA v. I. W. ROBERTS, Claimant, 224 NORTH CLAY STREET, SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA, S. S. No. [ XXX-XX-XXXX ], KLUMAC COTTON MILLS, INC., Employer, SALISBURY, N. C.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1949-04-13
Citations: 230 N.C. 262
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE ex rel. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA v. I. W. ROBERTS, Claimant, 224 NORTH CLAY STREET, SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA, S. S. No. [ XXX-XX-XXXX ], KLUMAC COTTON MILLS, INC., Employer, SALISBURY, N. C.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 230
Pages: 262–264

Head Matter:
STATE ex rel. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA v. I. W. ROBERTS, Claimant, 224 NORTH CLAY STREET, SALISBURY, NORTH CAROLINA, S. S. No. [ XXX-XX-XXXX ], KLUMAC COTTON MILLS, INC., Employer, SALISBURY, N. C.
(Filed 13 April, 1949.)
1. Master and Servant § 62—
The findings of fact by the Employment Security Commission as to the eligibility of a claimant to benefits under the Act, are conclusive when supported by any competent evidence. G.S. 96-4 (m).
2. Master and Servant § 60—
Evidence that during a period of six months, claimant’s efforts to obtain employment, in addition to reporting to employment service office, were limited to two occasions at one mill and one occasion at each of two other mills, is sufficient to sustain the Commission’s finding that he had failed to show he had been actively seeking work within the purview of G.S. 96-13 (c).
3. Master and Servant § 61—
The Chairman of the Employment Security Commission is vested with all authority of the Commission, G.S. 96-4 (a), when the commission is not in session, and where it appears that the claim was heard on appeal by the Chairman, and that claimant appealed therefrom “to the full Commission or to the Superior Court,” the hearing of the appeal by the Superior Court is accordant with statute, G.S. 96-15.
, 4. Appeal and Error § 40a—
A sole exception to the judgment and to'the signing of same, presents only whether the record sustains the judgment.
Appeal by claimant Roberts from Patton, Special Judge, October Term, 1948, of RowaN.
Affirmed.
Tbe claim of I. W. Roberts for benefits from tbe unemployment compensation fund was examined by tbe Employment Security Commission and denied.
Evidence in support of this claim was beard by Claims Deputy Clark, and, on appeal from adverse ruling, by Appeals Deputy Proctor (two bearings),'and by tbe Chairman of Employment Security Commission. In each instance claimant was beld ineligible for benefits under tbe Act. G.S. 96-1, et seq. Among other things it appeared that claimant expressed bis unwillingness to accept work on second or night shift. On tbe final bearing tbe Commission found that claimant Roberts was separated from employment by tbe Klumac Mills, Inc., .25 September, 1947; that claims for benefits under tbe Act were filed beginning 14 October, 1947, and up to time of final decision 25 May, 1948; that tbe claimant bad during that period of six months in addition to reporting to employment service office made effort to obtain employment at Cannon Mills, Kannapolis, on two occasions, at Old Mill, China Grove, once, and at Klumac Mills once. Tbe Commission concluded from tbe facts found that claimant bad failed to show that be bad been “actively seeking work” within tbe purview of tbe statute, G.S. 96-13 (c), and decided that be was ineligible for benefits during tbe period referred to and until be should show that tbe reasons for bis ineligibility no longer existed. Claimant through counsel appealed “to tbe full commission or to tbe Superior Court” and stated be wished “to base this appeal upon your (Commission’s) finding of fact.” Tbe case was thereupon sent to tbe Superior Court for bearing and was there beard. In tbe Superior Court it was beld that tbe findings of fact of tbe Commission were supported by competent and substantial evidence, and tbe decision of tbe Commission was in all respects affirmed.
Claimant excepted “to tbe foregoing judgment and tbe signing of tbe same,” and appealed to this Court.
W. D. Holoman, B. B. Overton, B. B. Billings, and D. G. Ball for appellee.
G. P. Barringer for claimant, appellant..

Opinion:
DeviN, J.
By statute tbe determination of tbe Employment Security Commission as to -the eligibility of a claimant for benefits under tbe Act is made "conclusive and binding as to all questions of fact supported by any competent evidence." G.S. 96-4 (m) ; Unemployment Compensation Com. v. Willis, 219 N.C. 709, 15 S.E. 2d 4; Graham v. Wall, 220 N.C. 84, 16 S.E. 2d 456. An examination of tbe evidence in tbe record in this ease leads to the conclusion that the court below ruled correctly that the findings and decision of the Commission were supported by competent evidence. The finding of fact that this claimant had not shown he had been actively seeking work during the period referred to was supported by the evidence and must be held conclusive as to the questions of fact involved. The court's affirmance of the conclusion based thereon will be upheld. By statute, G.S. 96-13 (c), an unemployed individual is eligible for benefits only if the Commission finds he is able to work and available for work, but he is not to be deemed available for work unless he establishes to the satisfaction of the Commission that he is actively seeking work. The procedure here followed as to hearings and appeals seems to have been in accordance with the statute. G.S. 96-15.
Appellant complained here that he did not have a hearing on his appeal from the chairman to the full commission, but we note his appeal in this instance was in the alternative, to the full commission or to the Superior Court. By G.S. 96-4 (a) the Chairman of the Commission, except as otherwise provided by the Commission, is vested with all authority of the Commission, including authority to conduct hearings and make decisions when the Commission is not in session.
However, as the claimant's only exception was to the judgment and the signing of the same, the only question presented is the sufficiency of the record to sustain the judgment. Query v. Ins. Co., 218 N.C. 386, 11 S.E. 2d 139; Crissman v. Palmer, 225 N.C. 472, 35 S.E. 2d 422; Roach v. Pritchett, 228 N.C. 747, 47 S.E. 2d 20; Lea v. Bridgeman, 228 N.C. 565, 46 S.E. 2d 555; Rhodes v. Asheville, 229 N.C. 355, 49 S.E. 2d 638.
The judgment of the Superior Court is accordingly
Affirmed.