Court Opinion

ID: 9756973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:11:58.879037+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:33.868556
License: Public Domain

QUILLEN, Chancellor
(concurring) :
While I join in the opinion of the Court, it seems desirable to me to express two thoughts which do not appear in the per curiam opinion.
First, this case demonstrates the importance of presenting all of the evidence in the administrative proceeding within the Department of Labor. Frequently both claimants and employers appear without counsel before the Board and do not develop the factual record that is necessary to support their contentions. In cases such as this one, it is important for unions and others who assist claimants to impress upon them the importance of making their best case at the administrative level.
Second, it is important to note what this Court did not decide. The Referee and the affirming Board determined that the Legislature did not intend that an individual should be eligible for unemployment compensation while incarcerated. But that question was not reached by the Superior Court and it is not reached in the per curiam opinion of this Court. Although neither Court has given approval or disapproval to that portion of the Referee’s decision, it can be construed as an administrative precedent. Therefore, even though I state an opinion on an issue which can be assumed in favor of the employee for the appellate purposes of this case, I want to expressly disassociate myself from that determination of the Referee.
There is no indication in Chapter 33 of Title 19 of the Delaware Code that the *764Legislature intended to exclude from the benefits of that chapter all individuals who are incarcerated where all other requirements of eligibility are met. It is true that an employee is disqualified “if he has become unemployed by reason of commitment to any penal institution.” 19 Del.C., § 3315(7).* But that focuses on the reason for unemployment and not the fact of commitment. Since that disqualification subsection specifically deals with the incarceration situation, I do not feel that judicial opinion should deem public policy to be more restrictive from the employee’s point of view than the express provision of that subsection.
Nor can any legislative intention to exclude all incarcerated individuals be found in Chapter 65 of Title 11, dealing with the Department of .Corrections. To the contrary, 11 Del.C., § 6532(a) provides that work assignments given to inmates within the correction facility shall, “to the maximum extent possible, . . . approximate normal conditions of employment in free agriculture and industry.” This statement of purpose is helpful by analogy in appreciating work experiences offered to “trustworthy inmates” outside the prison walls, as authorized by 11 Del.C., § 6533. An integral part of the “normal conditions of employment” which exist in the free labor market is, since the enactment of unemployment compensation laws, a compensatory system to protect workers from the hazard of involuntary unemployment. The system exists for the benefit of all persons unemployed through no fault of their own who are sincerely cooperating to end their unemployment. Johnston v. Chrysler Corp., Del.Supr., 178 A.2d 459 (1962). Those employed through a prison Work Release Program are not expressly excluded and, in my judgment, exclusion should not be automatically implied. Since the basic public policy of the statute is protection from the hazards of involuntary unemployment, no person by interpretation of the Act should be excluded from its benefits unless the Act, itself, in so many words, has demonstrated fairly an intention to make such exclusion. Emrick v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, Del.Super., 173 A.2d 743, 745 (1961); E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Dale, Del.Supr., 271 A.2d 35, 37 (1970); Harper v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, Del.Super., 293 A.2d 813 (1972); Lowe Bros., Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, Del.Supr., 332 A.2d 150, 152 (1975).
It is the legislatively declared public policy of this State that persons committed to institutional care shall be dealt with humanely, with effort directed to their rehabilitation, to effect their return to the community as safely and promptly as practicable. 11 Del.C., § 6531. Obviously, there is no better way to give a trustworthy inmate an opportunity to exist productively in society than by permitting him to work in a competitive market and by permitting him to enjoy beneficial .incidents of such work. Even under the most conservative philosophy, this approach is better than having an inmate, and possibly his family, totally economically dependent on the State for support.
The fact of an individual’s incarceration does not, in my opinion, per se eliminate an individual’s availability for work and ability to seek work. Many people besides prisoners have transportation and other logistic difficulties. Incarceration can of course be a negative factor and, after conviction, incarceration can be presumed to be the fault of the employee. Without evidence of probative value to overcome the normal implications of incarceration, the fact of incarceration may, as in this case, justify the conclusion that the eligibility requirements have not been satisfied. Moreover, the restrictions of the Work *765Release Program itself, either generally or as applied to a specific class of inmate or in a specific inmate’s case, may be such as to preclude an inmate from establishing the eligibility requirements. But the prerequisites to eligibility are questions of fact to be determined from the evidence, and a prison inmate, who has been determined not to be a threat to society by his placement on work release and who becomes unemployed through no fault of his own, should, under the Act, be given the same opportunity to prove his eligibility as a non-incarcerated member of the labor market. The appellant in the instant case simply failed to meet his burden before the Referee and the Board.

 In this case, as demonstrated by facts recited in the per curiam opinion, the appellant did not become unemployed by reason of his corn-mitment or by any restriction resulting therefrom.