Court Opinion

ID: 9545363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:10:33.297226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:34.953756
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring with comments):
I concur in the result under the assumption that the Commission regularly pursued its authority in finding the facts as recited and applying the penalty provided by the statute, which I agree is constitutional. The majority opinion is in accord with Diprizio v. Industrial Commission, Utah, 572 P.2d 679, No. 14698, November 11, 1977, which I defer to as the present law of this State. But for whatever purpose it may serve, judicially or legislatively, I reaffirm briefly my views stated in the dissent therein.
There are two fundamental propositions which I think should be controlling: The Industrial Commission is charged with the responsibility of (1), carrying out the purposes of the Act; and (2), of exercising judicial functions. The best way, in fact *1368the only way, the Commission can effectively discharge those responsibilities is by not being placed in a straight jacket and rigidly bound to impose only the maximum penalties. It should be able to regard them as máximums, comparable to other penalties prescribed by law; and should have discretion to impose the stated penalties in such manner as the ends of justice to the individuals involved, and the fulfillment of the purposes of the Unemployment Compensation Act may require.