Davie v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: April 20, 2011
• Docket: OXFap-10-02
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT OXFORD, ss. Docket No. AP-10-02 RIJv( - C\'t {//( '.: MATTHEW T. DAVIE,

Petitioner

v. DECISION AND ORDER

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CO~lISSION, STATE OF MAINE

Respondf'TIt

Petitioner Matthew Davie appeals the Maine Unemployment Insurance

Commission's determination that he is not eligible for unemployment benefits because

he refused an offer of suitable work for which he was reasonably fitted, resulting an

overpayment of $13,020. For the reasons discussed below, the court affirms the

Commission's decision.

1. BACKGROUND

Goodwin Motor Group employed Davie as a full-time technician at its

automotive service center from February 19, 2007, until January of 2009. When Davie

was initially hired he was paid an hourly wage of $12. After receiving an ASC master

technician certificate, Davie became a flat-rate hourly employee, meaning that he was

paid a flat hourly rate for each repair job depending on the number of hours that each

job should take. Davie's flat rate was $14 an hour. After the switch to the flat-rate

system, Davie saw a decrease in his wages due to a lack of work at Goodwin.

REC~~~\ r7~I,J , ~. < r-""

'-:

J '" .~' ~<:\,ntr"'",l'(., f '-to. ~ :i~~/·~·r-l·!·" ,. ~'~l~:,e'''.' C .. ':'~ '~~- ... ~~o-: ....:11.~~·;.j 1'\.~', \J'd ,r] ... In January of 2009, Goodwin terminated Davie due to lack of work. 1 On

February 13, 2009, and February 17, 2009, Goodwin's service manager called Davie and

left messages for Davie to call back regarding reemployment. Davie did not return

either of these calls. On February 19, 2009, Goodwin, on the advice of the Maine

Department of Labor, sent Davie a certified letter asking him to contact Goodwin

regarding possible reemployment. On February 23, 2009, Davie called Goodwin's

service manger. The service manager would not discuss the exact terms of the

reemployment over the phone, but set up an appointment to meet with Davie in person

on February 25, 2009. After speaking with a technician who still worked for Goodwin,

however, and learning that business was still slow, and after considering that he was

collecting more in unemployment benefits than he would make if he worked for

Goodwin, Davie decided not to attend the meeting. Davie has had no further contact

with Goodwin outside of these appeals.

On March 13, 2009, Goodwin submitted a statement to the Department of Labor

stating that Davie refused an offer of work. On April 29, 2009, a deputy for the Maine

Department of Labor found that Davie was not entitled to benefits as of February 8,

2009. Davie appealed, and a hearing was held before the Division of Administrative

Hearings on June 16, 2009. The hearing officer set aside the deputy's decision on the

ground that Davie had not received an offer of suitable work. Goodwin appealed the

hearing officer's decision to the Commission. Following a hearing on September IS,

2009, the Commission issued a decision on October 29, 2009. Concluding that Davie

refused an offer of suitable work. the Commission vacated the decision of the hearing

officer. Davie requested reconsideration of the Commission's decision, which was

1 At this time Davie had been considering quitting, and felt fortunate that he was laid off instead.

2 denied without further hearing on December IS, 2009. Davie now appeals to this court

pursuant to Rule 80C.

II. DISCUSSION

In reviewing a decision of the Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission, the

court must determine whether the record contains competent evidence to support the

findings of the Commission. Spear v. Me. Unemployment Ins. Comm 'n, 505 A.2d 82, 84

(Me. 1986). The court will affirm the Commission's decision if it is supported by

substantial evidence on the whole record. Id.; 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(5) (2009). The

court generally gives "great deference to the [agency's] interpretation of its own

regulations." Farley v. Me. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 624 A.2d 1233, 1234 (Me. 1993).

"Maine's unemployment compensation law provides that' an individual shall be

disqualified for benefits ... for the duration of his unemployment subsequent to his

having refused to accept an offer of suitable work for which he is reasonably

fitted ... .'" Clarke v. Me. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n., 491 A.2d 549, 551 (Me. 1985)

(citing 26 M.R.S.A. § 1193(3». The agency's assessment of the suitability of a proffered

position rests on an evaluation of all the factors included in section 26 M.R.S.A.

§ 1193(3). Those factors include: lithe degree of risk involved to his health, safety and

morals, his physical fitness and prior training, his experience and prior earnings, his

length of unemployment and prospects for securing local work in his customary

occupation, and the distance of the available work from his residence ..." 26 M.R.S.

§ 1193(3)(A). No single factor is determinative. Clarke, 491 A.2d at 551. II/The question

of the suitability of the work offered in a given case is one of fact and the

[Commission's] determination of that fact ... cannot be attacked ... if it is sustained by

3 competent evidence.'" Id. (citing Lowell v. Me. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 159 Me. 177, 183-84, 190 A.2d 271, 274 (1963)).

The Commission appears to have correctly applied the law. On appeal from the

decision of the hearing officer, the Commission held a hearing, heard testimony, and

considered the evidence contained in the record. After considering all of the relevant

evidence, and in light of the factors outlined in 26 M.R.S.A. § 1193(3)(A), the

Commission set aside the hearing officer's decision. The Commission found that had

Davie attended the February 2009 meeting he would have been offered suitable work

given his prior training, experience, and earnings, and that by failing to do so, Davie

effectively refused an offer of suitable work. Moreover, that the job that Davie would

have been offered was suitable is demonstrated by the fact that it was same position as

he had previously held with Goodwin. See Clarke, 491 A.2d at 553.

Davie contends that an offer to return to the same position would have been

unsuitable because of Goodwin's "convoluted methods of payment for service

technicians." The Commission correctly determined that this is not a situation where

Davie voluntarily left his emploYment prior to being laid off because of his

dissatisfaction with the conditions of his emploYment. Therefore, 26 M.R.S.A.

§ 1193(3)(B)(4) does not apply. See, e.g., Proctor v. Me. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 406 A.2d

90S, 907 (Me. 1979). Accordingly, the Commission did not err in applying only 26

M.R.S.A. § 1193(3)(A) in making its determination.

III. CONCLUSION

The Commission did not err in finding that Davie refused to accept an offer of

suitable work for which he was fitted. Accordingly, the decision of the Commission

must be affirmed.

4 The entry is:

Appeal DENIED. Decision of the Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a), the Clerk is hereby directed to incorporate this

Decision and Order by reference in the docket.

r r

(~i d-f) ... (XP (lI (i Dated: .C) ,. 'lV