Aaron v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
| Decision Date | 03 February 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-179A13,74-A-3401,74-A-3402,70-LD-191,74-A-3403,70-LD-200,LD-191,70-LD-190,LD-202,70-LD-199,70-LD-203,Nos. 70-LD-186,70-LD-204,70-,70-LD-201,A,s. 70-LD-186,2-179A13 |
| Citation | 416 N.E.2d 125 |
| Parties | Billy H. AARON, and each of the other claimants whose names are listed under Caseppellants (Claimants), v. REVIEW BOARD OF the INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION, William H. Skinner and David L. Adams, as members of and constituting the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, and General Motors Corporation (Employer), Appellees, and GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Appellant, v. REVIEW BOARD OF the INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION, William H. Skinner, Ralph F. Miles and David L. Adams, as members constituting the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, and Phillip E. Aaron, and each of the other claimants whose names are listed under Case, and 70-ppellees. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Forrest Bowman, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellant, claimants.
Barnes, Hickam, Pantzer & Boyd, Indianapolis, Otis M. Smith, James R. Wheatley, Detroit, Mich., for General Motors Corp.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Philip R. Blowers, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee Review Bd.
General Motors Corporation (GM) appeals from a decision 1 of the Review Board of We affirm in part and reverse in part.
the Indiana Employment Security Division awarding unemployment benefits to employees (Claimants) laid off during a ten week nationwide United Auto Workers strike in 1970, claiming a labor dispute existed at its factories exempted from the strike; and the claimants in cases which have been consolidated on appeal claim benefits were wrongfully denied to striking and non-striking employees during the start-up period after the termination of the strike, and that the Review Board erroneously concluded that money received from the Strike Assistance Fund was deductible from State unemployment compensation benefits.
From July 15, to November 23, 1970, General Motors Corporation (GM) and the International Union United Auto Workers (UAW) bargained over the terms and conditions of employment of GM employees. The UAW acted as the exclusive collective bargaining agent for GM employees, the bargaining unit consisting of production and maintenance employees of 155 GM plants across the nation, including nine locations in Indiana.
Negotiations centered on demands by the UAW for substantial changes in a national agreement covering all employees in the company-wide bargaining unit, upon which all terms and conditions of employment depended, including those contained in the various local supplements being negotiated at the same time. There was controversy over the basic terms and conditions of employment of all employees in the bargaining unit at all locations. According to the findings there were no local issues involved during the period prior to November 23 (the date of ratification of the national agreement). 2
The dispute culminated in a nationwide strike beginning September 14 and not ending until November 23, 1970. At that time more than 320,000 UAW members struck GM at 138 plants across the country on orders of their union, including six of the nine locations in Indiana. The strike was in support of the UAW's position on all issues in dispute, as authorized by strike vote at all locations, including all nine in Indiana. It was conducted by the union pursuant to a planned selective strike strategy designed to apply maximum economic pressure against GM by completely shutting down all GM automotive production but offering to continue to work at those plants which produced parts for GM's competitors. Accordingly, the UAW ordered its members to continue work at 17 such locations, including Delco Remy in Anderson, Detroit Diesel Allison in Indianapolis, and Delco Electronics in Kokomo. The UAW subsequently removed Delco Electronics from its "exempt" list on September 24, and ordered its members there to join the strike, which they did. Consequently, of the nine plants in Indiana, only two were exempt from the strike.
The strike had the expected effect of disrupting the company's automotive operations at all locations, which are admittedly highly integrated and interdependent. Production at the two plants, which were not actively struck pursuant to the union's strategy, was substantially curtailed as a direct and inevitable result of the strike, beginning immediately after the strike started and not ending until normal production could be resumed after the national strike ended and the new national agreement became effective on November 23, 1970.
The claimants at the exempt Indiana locations participated in and financed the national strike through the UAW Strike Assistance Program. The Board accepted the referee's ultimate conclusion that the employees of the exempt plants were not disqualified because
More than 20,000 claims for unemployment compensation were filed by UAW members who were unemployed as a result of these events at the nine Indiana locations. They fall into two categories.
First, the claimants at Delco Remy, Detroit Diesel Allison and Delco Electronics (exempt plants) who, at the outset of the strike, were directed to continue work pursuant to the UAW's national strike strategy, but who predictably became unemployed when production at those plants was substantially curtailed as a result of the strike. They were instructed to file these claims as a condition to drawing strike benefits and to reimburse the UAW strike fund out of any unemployment compensation they may receive. Benefits were claimed for the entire period of their unemployment, including, with respect to those members at Delco Electronics who were laid off as a result of the national strike before September 24, the entire period they were actively on strike thereafter.
Second, the claimants at all locations for the period beginning with the termination of the strike on November 23 until their recall when production was resumed on a normal basis at their respective locations.
The Review Board concluded that monies received from the Strike Assistance Plan were deductible income pursuant to the terms of the Indiana Employment Security Act.
GM presents the following issue for review:
1. Whether employees at an "exempt" plant whose unemployment results from a selective strike of other plants in their labor union can receive unemployment benefits.
Claimants present two issues for review:
2. Whether all claimants including employees at struck plants were eligible for unemployment benefits during post-strike start-up delay, and
3. Whether the Review Board has jurisdiction to decide the issue of deductible income and whether it then properly determined that the UAW's Strike Assistance Plan payments to laid-off employees constituted deductible income.
ISSUE ONE Whether employees at an "exempt" plant whose unemployment results from a selective strike of other plants in their labor union can receive unemployment benefits.
CONCLUSION Employees of an exempt plant whose unemployment results from a selective strike of other plants in their labor union are not entitled to unemployment benefits. The Review Board's determination that the curtailed production at the exempt plants was not due to a labor dispute at those facilities was erroneous. As a matter of law there was a labor dispute "at" the exempt plant.
In the interlude between June of 1971 when Artim Transportation System, Inc. v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, (1971) 149 Ind.App. 137, 271 N.E.2d 494 (transfer denied) was decided by this court and now, there have been no other Indiana cases involving payment of unemployment compensation benefits in selective or "whipsaw" strikes.
Artim decided that non-striking union employees of one of a multi-employer national bargaining unit negotiating with the union for a master contract were entitled to benefits because there was not "a labor dispute" at their "establishment." However, as the concurring opinion indicates, the "confused record" is "bare of any showing that the strike ... involved issues which were involved in the joint negotiations" or whether there were "genuine local issues." Thus Artim is distinguishable.
This case presents a more striking example than Artim of a situation in which employees at different plants engage in concerted efforts to achieve their contract goals. In Artim, the appellant-employer was a member of a trucking company negotiation committee, other members of which were being struck by the union. Here, the exempt plants are units of the same corporation with which the UAW unquestionably had a dispute. Whether the focus is on part of the assembly line within a plant or a series of assembly lines in various integrated plants producing certain products, a strike in one part affects all parts. See Adams v. Review Board, (1951) 121 Ind.App. 273, 98 N.E.2d 681.
An even more compelling argument against the finding of the Board in this case is based on the fact that the so-called non-disputing workers at the exempt plants share in the benefits for which the strikers were militating. The "exempt" claimants thus receive the dividends flowing from the orchestrated work stoppages, and even financed the strike through the UAW Strike Assistance Program. To maintain that they were non-disputants merely by virtue of the geographic location of their work places is an arbitrary determination. The union elected to place the plants in question here on the exempt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Underwood v. Waddell
...that the interpretation of the law given by those to whom it applies is to be given deference. Aaron v. Review Bd. of Indiana Emp. Sec. Division, 416 N.E.2d 125, 139 (Ind.App.1981); Heminger v. Police Commission of City of Fort Wayne, 161 Ind.App. 72, 314 N.E.2d 827, 838 (1974). Although th......
-
General Motors Corp. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue
...forth between component and assembly plants when necessary for more efficient operation.4 In Aaron v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1981), Ind.App., 416 N.E.2d 125, the court recognized GM's production of fully assembled automobiles as an integrated production pr......
-
Pierce Governor Co. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
...evidence if the claimants employees have carried their burden of proving that they have become qualified. Aaron v. Review Board of Ind. Emp. Sec. Div., (1981) Ind.App., 416 N.E.2d 125. The evidence must establish that the employer has returned to normal business operations and that the unem......
-
Aaron v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv.
...is negotiated, all members of an international union are affected and thus have a direct interest in the dispute. Aaron v. Review Bd. of Indiana (Ind.App. 1981), 416 N.E.2d 125. Conversely, local problems may cause a local union to strike at a certain plant. Strike negotiations over terms i......