(The chairman of the subcommittee at a later point in the record requested a memorandum from the District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Board, commenting upon the cases cited by Mr. Long. The memorandum follows:) Hon. WAYNE MORSE, GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DISTRICT UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Health, Education, Welfare, and Safety, DEAR SENATOR MORSE: At the last hearing on the various unemployment compensation bills you asked me to analyze and comment on the cases contained in exhibit I of Mr. Long's statement. Some of these cases involve claims prior to the modification of the disqualification provisions of our law in 1954. I will attempt to analyze each case and see what effect the various disqualification provisions which have been proposed might have on the payments. In other words, I will consider the disqualifications under the old law, if applicable, under existing law, under S. 1074, and under the proposal made by Mr. Long for the Laundry and Dry Cleaners Association. I want to point out that in all the disqualifications now in effect or proposed, a disqualification will lie only in connection with the separation from the claimant's most recent employer. In this report I shall not consider the different proposals as to the weekly benefit amount or duration. 1. This individual left the Pioneer Laundry, went to Tennessee to care for a sick brother, who later died. The claimant did not file a claim until 6 months after separation, and as the old law was in force, no ruling was made on whether the claimant had good cause for leaving or not because the period for which the disqualification could be imposed had passed prior to the filing of the claim. Under the old law it was not necessary to determine whether good cause existed. Assuming that there were no members of the family in the State of Tennessee to care for this sick brother, the Board would have ruled that the claimant had good cause for leaving and no disqualification would have been imposed under any of the provisions involved. In the event there was someone else on hand who could have cared for the sick brother, the chances are the Board might have ruled that there was not good cause for voluntary leaving. In that event if the present law had been in effect, the claimant would have received $300 instead of $400. Under the provisions of S. 1074, she still would have received $400, and under the Laundry and Dry Cleaners proposal she would not have received any benefits. 2. This case involved a person who stayed home from work to care for an ill mother. She informed the employer of this, but when she returned to work after her mother's death 4 weeks later, her position had been filled. This case was under the old law, but the result would have been the same under any of the proposals as she was laid off for other than misconduct. 3. This case involved an individual who left the Pioneer Laundry and went to work for another laundry prior to the time the claim for benefits was filed. She became ill on this job and was replaced. When she was well and returned to work there was no job available for her. Under any of the proposals she would have obtained the same amount of benefits as she was laid off for other than misconduct. 4. After leaving the Pioneer Laundry, this individual worked for a hotel prior to filing a claim for benefits. The claimant was laid off by the hotel, but there appears to be no evidence of misconduct. Accordingly, the result would have been the same under any of the proposals. 5. This case involved an individual who, after leaving the Pioneer Laundry, went to work for another employer and, according to the employer's statement, was separated because of lack of work. This individual would have drawn the same amount under all proposals. 6. This case involved an individual who, after leaving the Pioneer Laundry, went to work in Brooklyn, N.Y., and was there laid off by his employer for lack of work and he would have received the same amount under all proposals. 7. This case involved an individual who went to work for a restaurant after leaving the Pioneer Laundry and was there replaced while out ill. This individual would have drawn the same amount of money under any of the proposals. 8. This individual's last employer was the Pioneer Laundry, and he was disqualified for 6 weeks because he was discharged for misconduct. It is to be noted that the Board did not know that his absenteeism was caused by drinking. The disqualification imposed was under existing law. Had S. 1074 been in effect he would have drawn $30 less because of the added week of disqualification, and under the laundry and dry cleaning proposal he would have received no benefits. 9. This case involved an individual whose last employer was the Pioneer Laundry. She became pregnant and was released to enable the management to train a new employee. Her child was born before her claim was filed and, at that time, she established the fact that she had child care and was able and available for work. This individual would have received the same amount of benefits under any of the proposals. 10. This case involved an individual who voluntarily left the Pioneer Laundry and filed a claim for benefits. The claimant was disqualified for a period of 5 weeks for voluntarily leaving without good cause. received $95 more than under existing law, and under the laundry and dry cleaners Under S. 1074 he would have proposal he would have received no benefits at all. 11. This case involved an individual who voluntarily left the Pioneer Laundry upon advice of her physician. She was given a new work classification and her doctor certified that she was able to work in that classification. This individual waited 8 weeks before filing her claim for benefits. In this case there would have been no disqualification imposed under any of the systems involved. 12. This case involved an individual who voluntarily left the Pioneer Laundry upon advice of her physician. She was given a new work classification and her doctor certified that she was able to work in that classification. waited 10 weeks before filing her claim for benefits. In this case there would This individual have been no disqualification imposed under any of the systems involved. 13. This individual left the Pioneer Laundry to work at a hospital. Upor advice of her doctor she left her job at the hospital and after a period of 5 weeks filed a claim for benefits. She was reclassified by the U.S. Employment Service and her doctor certified she could work in the new classification. However, later when her physical condition improved, she applied for work at the hospital and there were no openings. There would have been no disqualification in this case under any of the systems involved. 14. This individual was laid off by the Pioneer Laundry because she was unable to maintain production standards. qualification under any of the laws. In this case there would have been no dis 15. This individual was discharged by the Pioneer Laundry for drinking and being drunk on the job. The maximum disqualification of 10 weeks for a discharge for misconduct was imposed, this being a second offense. this individual would have drawn $230 more than he drew, and under the laundry Under S. 1074 and dry cleaners proposal he would have drawn no benefits. 16. This individual was laid off by the Pioneer Laundry, and according to the information submitted by them, she was replaced by a former employee who had returned to work after a pregnancy leave. No disqualification was imposed, and none would have been imposed under any of the proposals. 17. This individual was dismissed by the Pioneer Laundry after a period of approximately 8 weeks in jail. There was no evidence of misconduct in connection with this work, so no disqualification would have been imposed under any proposal. 18. This individual left the Pioneer Laundry and went to work for a large chain food store. He was laid off by this employer for unsatisfactory services, but there was no evidence of misconduct. Accordingly, there would be no disqualification under any of the proposals. 19. This claimant last worked for the Pioneer Laundry and voluntarily quit to return home to care for her ill mother who was also blind. After a period of 61⁄2 months she filed her claim for benefits and established that she was able and available for work. There would have been no disqualification under any of the proposals. 20. This individual left the Pioneer Laundry to work for another laundry where she left due to pregnancy which terminated in a miscarriage. Three months after leaving the other laundry she applied to the other laundry for a job, but found no opening. She established that she was able and available for work and was paid benefits. There would have been no disqualification under any of the proposals. 21. This individual was laid off by the Pioneer Laundry and a deputy of the Board was informed by the employer on the phone that no misconduct was present, but the claimant was on an excused absence and was replaced because the company was short of help. No disqualification would have been imposed under any of the proposals. 22. This claimant was discharged by the Pioneer Laundry because she was drunk on the job. The claimant was disqualified for 10 weeks because of misconduct. She would have received $200 additional benefits under S. 1074, and no benefits under the laundry and dry cleaners proposal. 23. This individual left the Pioneer Laundry to work in a large food chain. He left this employer and was disqualified 7 weeks for leaving without good cause. The claimant did not file his claim for 5 weeks after the second leaving. There would have been no difference under S. 1074, and the claimant would not have drawn any benefits under the laundry and dry cleaners proposal. 24. This individual left the Pioneer Laundry to work for another large laundry. He was laid off by that laundry for lack of work. This was confirmed by the second laundry. He filed a claim for benefits 2 weeks later. There would have been no disqualification under any of the proposals in this case. 25. The claimant left the Pioneer Laundry to accompany his wife to her home in Rhode Island. He was disqualified 5 weeks for voluntarily leaving without good cause. Under S. 1074 he would have received $150 in additional benefits, and under the laundry and dry cleaners proposal he would have received no benefits. 26. This employee left the Pioneer Laundry because of pregnancy. She did not file a claim for 3 months and, at that time, was ruled able and available for work. She drew only 1 week's benefits before returning to the Pioneer Laundry. There would have been no disqualification in this case under any of the proposals. 27. This claimant was laid off involuntarily by the Pioneer Laundry because of pregnancy. After a lapse of 1 month she filed her claim for benefits. She was offered reemployment at the Pioneer Laundry, but did not take it as she could not meet her appointments at the medical clinic. She was then ruled not available for work by the Board for a short period of time and she went to work for another employer on a temporary basis, and after being laid off she was ruled available for work. Her benefits were split by a period of several months' work at a large department store where she was laid off because of lack of work It is not believed that any disqualification would have been imposed under any of the systems as she was laid off involuntarily. In 10 of the 27 cases the Pioneer Laundry was not the claimant's most recent employer before filing claims for benefits. In those cases the reasons for separation from the Pioneer Laundry had no bearing on the claims for benefits. An analysis of these cases indicates that if S. 1074 had been in effect, $645 additional benefits would have been paid, and if the laundry and dry cleaners proposal had been in effect that $1,670 less benefits would have been paid. Respectfully, LOUIS MACKALL, Jr., Attorney. APPENDIX (EXHIBIT II) Summary of case histories of the Pioneer Laundry, Washington, D.C., for the period June 30, 1954, to June 30, 1958 APPENDIX (EXHIBIT III) TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY THE LAUNDRY-DRY CLEANING ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE THE HOUSE DISTRICT COMMITTEE, JULY 9, 1959, RE H.R. 1378 Summary of unemployment compensation case histories for the period ending June 30, Summary of unemployment compensation case histories for the period ending June 30, 1958-Continued We Senator MORSE. So that you may go ahead now and discuss them. May I also say, Mr. Mackall, that I would like to have a memorandum from the Board setting forth your comments on the cases that Mr. Long has supplied us,' because it is this kind of material that disturbs the committee very much with respect to the administrative results of your unemployment insurance laws. receive many complaints during the year that there are malingerers and those who are abusing the system. We appreciate that the Board has a very difficult problem of administration in this field. It is a case of trying to do good for those who deserve it. Sometimes you seem to wrong the rest of society in the cases that take advantage of the generosity of the public in setting up such a system as this. 1 The memorandum requested may be found on p. 126. |