Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )

:
OFFICE OF THE A’ITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
$.
AUSTIN
Bonorable Claude A. Willtio
chairman an& ExeoutiveDirector
Tex8B TJm!mplagmentCcmponuticm Ccmmlerlon
Au8 tin, Texea
“A oarporatlonvlth
&r%,l 6; 1939, that it Y
atatpl under the
de& rollferd .it mven ladl-
viduals In its on in iorae, it
did, was due lvity., upon the
receipt of thl ri8ion of the
Cc4merrionvro ttor vhloh ir
attsohed as
, ~na of our Sield
tion telling it6 maa-
etion no good to 2110
f~ooverege at tb.eend
number of persona ia’the
oration vaa alne lnatead of sloven.
this etateuentbeoeuae Comtls-
15 and 16, ea veil aa Ctmmlrsion
Iray,required that non-salaried
8 In employment. The torpors tlen
YO such oificers Ln Its oeunt and had,
6, 1939, ma only seaen. It wan In
ployment aftor Aplr3.l
May, 1941, t&t State vs. Kenyon, 153 8. w. (2d) 195,
raf’erredto above, was deeldod.
IlanQrableClaude A. Wlllle``. ?ego 2
"Bsoaumeof the lt8tement8m&e br OUT field au-
ditor, the corporationdid not file the to-1 applloe-
tion for tonalnationof cowrage vhloh wee eent to it,
It did file such formel appllorrtloa
in Je.uuaw of 1941.
A oopy of the lest melitlonedfan 18, llkevlee, attaeh-
ed as Exhibit B.
"The question upon vaioh ve nqueet row opinion
lhould oonelder the employer'e
le vhether this Goar~aieelon
letter of April 6, 1939, attaohed a8 Sxhlbit C, together
with the other olrouutanoee reoited lbore, ee aperatlug
to pewlt the Ccemleelontetenelaatingthe corgoratloz4te
llebIlS.tyas an elsployeron Deoamber 31, 1939,.
~ha oourte of thie etate have passed upon Section 60 tsf
Artlale 5221b, Vernon'8 Annotated Civil Statutes, providing the
rothod of terminationof employer oovenge on eeveml oocaelone.
You are PO doubt familiar vith these ~8888. Witherspoon 011 Ca-
p8ny ve. Stete,156 9. W. (2d) 579; Webb VP. State, 1% 8. W. (Zd)
557~ Hhrrir VII.Stats, 159 S. W. (24) 172j and feetnor VI. Steto,
not yet reported.
Speclfloally,your puestlon 1s whether the letter of the
oaplojer under date of April o, 1333, dlreoted to the Teaee Unea-
ployment C~peneatlon Camisei.on.my be oonslderedae oporetlng
to perrmitthe Commlaaion~stemalxutlng the corporatlon~e llablllty
at the end of the year 1939. The letter of the ee~ployer eorporatlon
rude1
"Texas unemploymnt Compeneatlonc~laslon
Austin, Texas
G%ntle3aen:
"On Aprll l5th, we are euepemU.ngpublicration of
a daily paper beoause of lnoreaein(6:
ooste of operation,
euoh ae Sooiel Seourlty Texee. We vi11 publish a paper
tvloe a week in the future and a8 a result, sfter April
15th, irevi.llemploy not more than 7 persona, wiua5.n.g
ue to be exempt from Unexaploymmnttaxee. Will you
please advise us whet notlGe we em required to make
and to vhcm, and at vbat date vi11 ve be relieved frcei
thle Unemployment tax burden?
Qlrude A. Wllllene, I’ege3
HOIiOrrrB1e
Artlole 5221b, Section 6(a), Vornon*e Annotated Civil
Watutee, read*:
*An ompluying un$t hull aeaee to be an employ-
er eubjeot to thle Act only ee of the let dey of’
January of eny oalender year, if it files vlth the
Cammlomion,prior to the jlet dey of MAroh of such
yeer, a vrltten appllosti0nfortesU.mtion of oover-
age, end the Camleelon tlnde thet there vere no
tvontj (20) different daye, each day belag ln e dlf-
ferent veok vithin the prooedlng oelendar year vlth-
in whiah suah employing uult omp2oyed eight (8j or
more iribividuale ln employment eubjeot to thie Act.
For the purposea OS thle eubeeatloa the two or more
loylng unite mentlOzmd In peregreph (2) or (3) or
“p of eeatloa 19(f) &ell be treeted ae a sing10
(4
slployingunit.”
It ie unfortunate for the employer that your flold
wproeeutativs advleed h&m, sinas thie advlae reeulted In the
aployer’s failure to later terainete hia ooverege 88 euggeeted
by the Ccmmlselon. However, the letter of the employer on April
6, 1939, vee not with- the period fixed by etatute for temUe-
tion. The opinion of Judge CcaPbe in the ore8 of Xarrle Ye. TkO
State, 159 s. w. (26) 172, *tatoar
” * + l l appellant oonten&e that he made ‘cub-
etentlel,prectioal end reseoneb3.e~ ocmpllanoe 41th
the Act upon termlnetlonof his coverage in Septem-
ber, 1937. This contention is beeed upon the feot
thet vhen appellant euependcrd bueineae In Auguet,
1937, and since e report and remittanoe to the Texee
unsrnploymentCompensationCammieelcua tovsrlng the
month of August, ha ineerted In the report the fol-
lOWillg2 sFlnalmonthly report. Bueineee abeorbod by
Texas Cab Company. Penelty for emplog5ng labor too
great.*
Judge Comba then eayat
“Thus the Act requires tvo thing8 ee 8 prOr%~-
uielte for the tenainatlonof ooverage by an employer
eubjeot to the Act, written applloatlanby the employ-
er for texmlnationOS oovemge, and a fInding by the
Commlaaionof Pact8 which sntltle the employer to
texvAnnta It. We think the method preeorlbed le es-
elusive end that v&en the statw of ~employerlon00
atteohee under the Aot It oant$nuee until tenelneted
in the mmner provided. + l l
ltonor8bleclmdo A. Yllli8aar,Page c
The opinion of J’udso Cambr in the Hurlr aaae appuca
to be in point on al8 quertlon 8nd ve muat t0110v it.
Ths Cagi88iOll 18 &lot 08tOppd m the aUtiOII Of it8
lWpIW8O!ltIBtiVe. ROgWdlO88 Of the 8mthy VB nrSy have iOr the
eaplofw, vc believe the luthoritie8 cited vould prevent the
Oami88ion from treatin(3the letter of April 6, 1939, 88 a 8Ub-
8ttblltiol oarplianoewith Section 6(a) of Article 5221b..
" - -- -Narrlr~n
A88i+.jht