Molnar

The California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, the California Employment Development Department (EDD), and A1 Lee, EDO’s director, appeal from a judgment granting Denis Charles Molnar’s petition for an administrative writ of mandamus. In this case of first impression, we are asked to define work requirements pursuant to Unemployment Insurance Code section 1277, subdivision (a) in the context of an involuntarily terminated employee’s second claim for unemployment benefits.

I

Xerox laid off Molnar in January 1994, offering him as part of a severance package a lump-sum payment or a salary continuance plan. Molnar elected the latter, which Xerox paid through the middle of August. He also received EDD unemployment benefits with an effective date of July 3, 1994.

Molnar filed a second unemployment claim in June 1995 which EDD denied. He appealed but the administrative law judge affirmed the ruling. His appeal to the Board met a similar fate. Finally, the trial court granted Molnar’s petition for a writ of administrative mandamus. The Board appeals.

II

Section 1277, provides in relevant part, “[I]f the base period of a new claim includes wages which were paid prior to…