Opinion ID: 2611215
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The absence of any law requiring acceptance of oath bound employment.

Text: [3] No law of this state requires a loyalty oath as a condition for receiving unemployment insurance benefits, and no law declares that an applicant must apply for a position conditioned on the taking of such an oath. The Constitution of California does not require an oath in such cases. In 1952, the Constitution was amended, by vote of the people of the state on amendments relating to loyalty, which originated in the State Assembly and were proposed by the Legislature. By article XX, section 19, public employment at every level was forbidden to anyone who advocates the overthrow of the government by force or violence or other unlawful means. Article XX, section 3, requires a loyalty oath of public employees at every level of government. Article XX, section 19, denies tax exemption to anyone who advocates overthrow of the government by force, violence, or other unlawful means. The statute which was passed for the purpose of effectuating this provision, section 32 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, was held unconstitutional because it placed the burden of proving loyalty on the applicant ( Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 [78 S.Ct. 1332, 2 L.Ed.2d 1460]; First Unitarian Church v. County of Los Angeles, 357 U.S. 545 [78 S.Ct. 1350, 2 L.Ed.2d 1484]), and no substitute statute was passed at the legislative session following these decisions. Thus, it appears that a rather comprehensive plan relating to loyalty, not only for employees, but also for persons seeking tax exemptions, perhaps as broad a plan as was deemed necessary and acceptable, was proposed and was adopted by the people in 1952, but nothing was said in that plan about unemployment insurance benefits. The statutes say nothing about taking either a loyalty oath or a position that requires a loyalty oath as a condition to the receiving of unemployment insurance benefits. Section 3102 of the Government Code (part of the Levering Act) prescribed loyalty oaths for government employees. The Unemployment Insurance Code is silent on the subject. No statute couples unemployment insurance benefits with loyalty oaths. Nor is the omission to mention loyalty oaths in the code merely an oversight. In 1949, a bill to amend section 57a of the Unemployment Act (which is the predecessor of the code), to require that a statement of loyalty, in a prescribed form accompany every claim for unemployment insurance benefits was proposed in the state Senate but was not reported out of the Committee on Social Welfare to which it has been referred. (Sen. Bill 1127 [1949], Sen. Fin. Hist. p. 338.) In the brief of amicus curiae, submitted in reply to appellant's arguments against the constitutionality of the particular mode of administering the law as it affects appellant, it is related that a statute of Ohio requiring loyalty oaths of applicants for unemployment insurance benefits was held constitutional in Dworken v. Collopy, 91 N.E.2d 564, appeal dismissed, 118 N.E.2d 857, and State v. Hamilton, 110 N.E.2d 37. Appellant has argued against the validity of these decisions but we need not, and should not, decide whether a similar statute, if passed in California, should be held to be constitutional or not. The argument does point up the fact, however, that Ohio does expressly demand the oath, in Ohio Revised Code, section 4141.28, while the California code does not do so. It is true that the administrative officers of the Department of Employment did not directly demand the taking of a loyalty oath as a condition to receiving benefits. If they had done so as to Syrek, no doubt they would have done so as to all applicants, for every kind of work. That such a ruling by an administrative agency, unsupported by statute, would be an illegal assumption of legislative power, would seem to be beyond doubt. The department referred the applicant to employment which required the oath. This removes the oath taking requirement by one step, but we do not believe that there is an essential difference. The impact of the requirement of the oath would be felt only by those applicants who cannot take the oath conscientiously and who are referred to government employment. The fortuity of job openings with government, or the particular referral decided upon by an officer or employee of the Department of Employment would be the deciding factor. An unemployed person who actually might be very disloyal might receive benefits if it happened that he was not directed to employment which required the oath. It would seem that if the law is to require loyalty oaths in such a case as the one before us, the law should say so.