Opinion ID: 1965906
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Arthur Case.

Text: Miss Arthur, the other claimant, had been employed in the Twisting Examination subdivision of the Textile Department since November 12, 1934. After notice that there were twelve jobs in this department which had been permanently abolished, she elected, in accordance with the option in Article 16, section (c), to terminate her employment, and on November 9, 1950 made written application for technological displacement allowance. On November 16, 1950 she relinquished her employment and on November 21, 1950 collected her allowance, amounting to $768.00, and signed a receipt. On November 20, 1950 she filed claim for unemployment compensation, stating, I am now available for work at night only as I am starting to Bible College. The claim examiner held her disqualified under section 5(b). On her appeal, the Referee denied her benefits because he found that she was unavailable for work. On her appeal before the Board, the Board found that the claimant's separation from work was because of a lack of work. Under section 7(c) (7) of the Maryland Unemployment Compensation Law, any benefits paid to the claimant must be charged against the account of the employer, and held, The claimant became available for work as of March 14, 1951, and, if otherwise eligible, she is entitled to benefits from that date. The decision of the Referee is modified to conform with this decision. A stipulation of counsel shows later action from which an appeal might have been taken but apparently was not taken. At all events, no such appeal is before us. The decision that, if otherwise eligible, she is entitled to benefits from that date is not a final decision. Statutory provisions for appeal from, or review of, orders of administrative tribunals have generally been construed as applicable, not to interlocutory orders, but only to final orders. Big Vein Coal Co. v. Leasure, 192 Md. 435, 437, 64 A.2d 563, 564, and cases cited; Bonner v. Celanese Corporation, 193 Md. 132, 135-136; Bogley v. Barber, 194 Md. 632, 72 A.2d 17, 20; Federal Power Commission v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 304 U.S. 375, 58 S.Ct. 963, 82 L.Ed. 1408. The appeal in the Arthur case was therefore premature, and should have been dismissed. Order in the Bartlett case affirmed with costs. Order in the Arthur case reversed, costs to be paid by the Employer.