Opinion ID: 1287498
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: qualman exercised good faith in attempting to cultivate a job opportunity

Text: While Tackett would appear to dispose of the present case in favor of Qualman qualifying for unemployment insurance benefits, the Court's analysis must continue pursuant to this Court's holding in Czarlinsky v. Employment Sec. Agency, 87 Idaho 65, 390 P.2d 822 (1964). In Czarlinsky, the Court considered whether a claimant was eligible for unemployment insurance benefits given the claimant never received an offer of employment. The Czarlinsky Court considered whether a claimant was eligible for unemployment insurance benefits after she gave her prospective employer the impression that she would not have accepted a job even if it had been offered. Czarlinsky, 87 Idaho at 69, 390 P.2d at 824. In Czarlinsky the Industrial Accident Board found that the claimant, initiated the breakdown in the job interview. The Industrial Accident Board concluded that the claimant would be held responsible for the employer's failure to consider her further for the job, in the same manner as if the claimant had simply refused to apply for the position. Czarlinsky, 87 Idaho at 68, 390 P.2d at 823. On appeal, the Czarlinsky Court affirmed the Industrial Accident Board's decision. Czarlinsky, 87 Idaho at 72, 390 P.2d at 826. The Czarlinsky Court held that, despite the fact that the claimant did not receive an offer of employment, the claimant was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits since the claimant failed to make a reasonable, good faith effort to secure employment. Czarlinsky, 87 Idaho at 70-72, 390 P.2d at 824-26. The claimant's testimony in Czarlinsky regarding her job interview was as follows: Well, after making out my application, he asked, of course, about my sales experience and all which was shown on the application. And then he told me, of course what the work consisted ofthat it was in the cosmetic department. And then he went on to relate that the hours would be nine till six one week; twelve to nine the following week. And then I told him that I preferred not working nights. And he asked the reason why and I told him it was because I had a home and I had a dog that had to have care for it, and I didn't care to be out after night hours, that I hadn't worked night hours and I preferred not working nights if I could possibly find something thatthat I didn't have to. Q But did you ever, at any course in the interview, say that you would not work nights? A No. Q You did not. You said you preferred not working nights? A That's right. Q And what occurred after you made this statement? A Well he said that that would close our conversation; that he had to have someone that would work nights. Czarlinsky, 87 Idaho at 68, 390 P.2d at 823. The claimant further testified that the employer informed her that he had two other applicants who could fill the position. Czarlinsky, 87 Idaho at 69, 390 P.2d at 824. The Czarlinsky Court concluded the evidence supported the Industrial Accident Board's finding that the claimant initiated the breakdown of her application for work such that the claimant would be deemed to have refused to apply for the position. Czarlinsky, 87 Idaho at 72, 390 P.2d at 826. The Czarlinsky Court held that since the claimant failed to apply for suitable employment, she was not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. Id. The claimant's desire not to work nights did not constitute good cause for refusing to make a reasonable effort to secure employment. Czarlinsky, 87 Idaho at 70, 390 P.2d at 824. The Czarlinsky Court rejected the claimant's contention that she applied for suitable work and that the position was not offered to her, making her eligible for benefits. Czarlinsky, 87 Idaho at 70, 390 P.2d at 824. The Court stated that [i]f claimant had actually been offered the job for which she was interviewing and had subsequently refused the offer, there would be no doubt of her ineligibility for unemployment benefits. She would have refused an offer of suitable employment. Czarlinsky, 87 Idaho at 70, 390 P.2d at 824. The Czarlinsky Court held the purpose of Idaho's Employment Security Act was instructive: It is to be remembered, however, that the Employment Security Act is designed to alleviate economic insecurity and to relieve hardships resulting from involuntary unemployment. It was intended to provide benefits for those unemployed under prescribed conditions who are willing and able to work but unable to secure suitable employment on the labor market. It would be a frustration of legislative intent to allow benefits to a claimant who fails to make a reasonable effort to secure employment. We have held in a similar context that the element of good faith is an essential ingredient of good cause. It is essential that a claimant who is being interviewed for possible employment must evidence good faith in attempting to cultivate the job opportunity. Czarlinsky, 87 Idaho at 70, 390 P.2d at 824-25 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Applying the holding in Czarlinsky to the facts of this case, we must determine whether during the interviewing stage, Qualman acted in good faith in attempting to cultivate the Glenns Ferry school counselor job opportunity. In Czarlinsky, the Court held that a claimant's statement that she preferred not working nights and the employer's response to terminate their conversation since he had two other applicants for the position, did not constitute good cause for discouraging an offer of employment. In the present case, Qualman informed Cline, once Cline proposed the school counselor position for $25,110, that she wanted at least $30,000 for the position. Cline responded that he would check with school district officials and get back to Qualman. Cline later called Qualman and informed her that the school district could not pay her over $25,110 for the position. After Qualman continued to insist she was worth at least $30,000, Cline stated that he had an alternate plan in mind and the conversation ended. We hold that Qualman's request for $30,000 was in good faith and did not rise to the level in Czarlinsky where this Court held that the claimant had failed to make a reasonable effort to secure employment. Qualman has evidenced good faith in attempting to cultivate the school counselor position. Qualman was trying to negotiate a higher salary based upon her education and experience when Cline terminated the conversation. We conclude that there is no substantial and competent evidence to support the Commission's finding that Qualman refused an offer of suitable employment. Qualman is eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.