Court Opinion

ID: 9563759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:46:27.786464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:04.031323
License: Public Domain

WORTHEN, Justice
(concurring).
I concur in the opinion of Mr. Justice CROCKETT — adding the following: The act in question is remedial and should be liberally construed to avoid economic insecurity due to unemployment. Plaintiff testified that he went to work in the mines *120because he couldn’t make a living farming. What petitioner did on the farm after his services were discontinued at the mine was just what he had done while working at the mine. The dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice ITenriod states,
“* * * and that for many years prior to his mine work and during the entire time he was employed in the mine, both in working periods and layoff periods he was actively and continuously engaged in farming.”
The decision of the Board of Review used this language,
“There is no evidence that the claimant in the instant case has abandoned, or intends to abandon, his self-employment as a farmer. To the contrary, he testified that he intended as time went on to increase his dairy herd in order to make his operation more profitable. His self-employment continued during the period of time when he was working for wages for another employer.”
It is apparent that plaintiff was at all times herein mentioned self-employed. But the act does not specifically cover such a case. It is not provided that if a claimant performs simultaneously work for another for wages and work for himself he should upon suspension of the work for wages be disqualified to receive benefits because of his self-employment.
In my opinion a rational interpretation of the meaning of the statute does not contemplate that where one has accepted covered employment and at the same time is continuing to fully perform the necessary service connected with his self-employment (farming) that it is possible for him to return to his customary self-employment. Plaintiff did operate his farm while working at the mines. I believe that the legislature meant what the language used contemplated. If he had discontinued his self-employment to enter the mines the department might, if it seemed fair and reasonable, direct him to return to his self-employment. If he had leased his former self-employment (farm) it would probably be unfair to give such a directive. However, the act would seem to envision a situation similar to the one mentioned and the legislature provided for his being relieved from following the directive if he has good cause to offer why he cannot or should not return to his customary self-employment.