Court Opinion

ID: 9718912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:37:33.621117+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:03.451695
License: Public Domain

Peck, J.
Claimant Dominic Losordo was employed by the United States Postal Service (employer) on June 2, 1980, as a temporary, or “casual,” employee, at the Burlington, Vermont, Post Office. He was, on the date he commenced employment, and at all times material, a resident of East Middle-bury, Vermont, and traveled daily a total of approximately eighty miles from his home to Burlington and return.
There are several characteristics of casual employment in •the postal service applicable to- all employees having that -status. Under thé employer’s regulations, a casual employee is given a ninety-day appointment subject to reappointment *392for an additional ninety days (or a total of 180 days) within the same calendar year. There are no guaranteed hours of work per day, and in claimant’s case the hours worked varied from three in the slow season, to overtime, especially in the Christmas season. Claimant’s pay remained constant at $4.76 per hour, for all hours actually worked, including overtime, throughout the period of his employment. Casuals participate in few if any of the benefits accorded permanent status employees, nor are they represented by any worker organization.
Having completed the maximum 180 days of work in 1980, claimant’s employment was terminated on December 23rd of that year. He was, however, offered a third casual appointment to commence sometime in January 1981. This offer claimant refused, giving as his reason that he could not afford the cost of commuting to Burlington. It appears as well that he became disgruntled when he learned that, because of new federal regulations relating to employment opportunities for veterans of the Vietnam conflict, he had been “bumped” from sixth to seventeenth place on a list of eligibles for permanent positions with the Postal Service. He stated expressly to the referee, however, “that the fact that I was not going to be made permanent was not the reason for leaving.”
Following his termination claimant applied for unemployment benefits. These benefits were denied at all levels, i.e., the claims examiner, the appeals referee, and the Employment Security Board. He now appeals to this Court from the decision of the Board.
Both the Board and the referee denied the claim on the basis of 21 V.S.A. § 1344(a) (2) (A), holding that claimant left his last employment voluntarily without good cause attributable to the employer. He contends, among other things, that reliance upon this statutory provision was error, and that his entitlement should have been determined under 21 V.S.A. § 1344(a)(2)(C). This provision denies benefits to one who fails, “without good cause ... to accept suitable work when offered him.”
We agree with the claimant’s position on this issue. Whatever may have been his response to the offer of further employment to commence in January of 1981, and whether or *393not the offer of renewed employment was for identical work in the same labor market area, In re Barcomb, 132 Vt. 225, 315 A.2d 476 (1974), he had accepted as his own, he left his employment on December 23, 1980, because he was terminated by his employer on that date. He had no choice in the matter.
The claimant could not have worked for the employer, at least from December 23rd through the 31st (and until the effective date of the offer of renewed employment). His job ended through no fault of his own. Anthony Adams AIA Architect v. Department of Employment Security, 139 Vt. 413, 414-15, 430 A.2d 446, 447 (1981). Accordingly, his refusal to return to the job cannot be “bootstrapped” by the employer to constitute a sort of retroactive voluntary leaving. His decision against returning, whether announced before or subsequent to December 23, 1980, has no relation or relevancy to the reason in fact for the end of employment; the attempt to tie the two together was error.

Reversed and remanded to the Employment Security Board for further findings and for the computation of benefits, if any, to which claimant may be entitled, in accordance with this opinion.