Court Opinion

ID: 9643462
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:29:42.167494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:00.679563
License: Public Domain

Holden, J.,
concurring. I am in agreement with the holding of the majority on the principal question; namely, that the claimants cannot restrict their availability to the labor market by the imposition of conditions dictated by personal convenience to themselves or their families. I doubt that the subordinate question relating to the adjustment period is before us. Decision on this issue was expressly withheld by the court below.
Whether such a transition time is compensable depends on whether the claimant had good cause to refuse the first job opportunity at a time in conflict with her family responsibilities. And, as the main opinion correctly points out, decision on this issue must depend on the facts of each case.
The court below has found, “There is a market in Brattleboro for night labor of the type for which the claimants were fitted by training and experience.” As long as such a market was open, it seems reasonable that the claimants should be afforded an opportunity to compete for such work or to readjust their domestic affairs to accommodate the demands of daytime employment.
Decision on whether benefits should be available in this interval should be left to the administrative discretion of those charged with the responsibility of enforcing the act. We should not undertake to give a categorical answer to the problem when the precise point is not presented to us.
*50On Motion for Reargument
Shangraw, J.
Upon the handing down of the opinion in the above case the plaintiffs moved for leave to reargue. By reason of matters brought to our attention relating to the correct parties appellant, as well as the section of the statute under which the appeals were taken, the opinion was recalled and these changes have been made.
Other than the foregoing, the motion presented no points which were overlooked, misapprehended or not covered in the opinion.
The revision of the opinion does not change the result previously reached, and the entry order is not affected. No ground for reargument appears. The motion is denied.