Abshier v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Division
| Decision Date | 15 May 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 18274,18274 |
| Citation | 122 Ind.App. 425,105 N.E.2d 902 |
| Parties | ABSHIER et al. v. REVIEW BOARD OF INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION et al. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Wilbur F. Dassel, Evansville, for appellants.
J. Emmett McManamon, Atty. Gen., Glen F. Kline, Depty. Atty. Gen., for Review Board.
Arthur R. Donovan, Kahn, Dees, Donovan & Kahn, Evansville, for Seeger Refrigerator.
The appellants, 1,253 in number, are production and maintenance employees of Seeger Refrigerator Company of Evansville, Indiana, hereinafter referred to as the employer. They seek unemployment benefits under the Indiana Employment Security Act for the calendar weeks in the period from March 20, 1951, through April 3, 1951.
The facts, as found by the Review Board of the Employment Security Division, are comparatively brief and we quote them as follows:
'The Review Board finds that a labor dispute existed between Local 121 of the United Plant Guard Workers of America and the employer from some time prior to March 20, 1951, through April 3, 1951; that because of such labor dispute, Local 121 of the United Plant Guard Workers of America called a strike at this employer's establishment on March 20, 1951, and established pickets at the entrances of this employer's establishment on such date; that a large majority of the production and maintenance employees, including the claimants herein, refused to cross the picket lines established by the striking union, which resulted in a stoppage of work at this employer's establishment on March 20, 1951; and that such stoppage of work continued to exist until April 4, 1951, when the dispute between the Plant Guard Workers of America and the employer herein was settled and normal production resumed.
'The Review Board further finds that the employer had work available for all of the claimants throughout the period of such stoppage of work; that their failure to cross the picket lines which were peaceful was an act of participation in the labor dispute between the employer and the Plant Guard Union; and that their resulting unemployment was due to a stoppage of work which existed because of a labor dispute in which each of the claimants was a participant.
'The Review Board further finds that all the claimants involved herein were production and maintenance workers and members of the bargaining unit for which Local 808 of the I.U.E.C.I.O. was the authorized bargaining agent; that some of the production and maintenance workers actively participated in the picket lines of the Plant Guard Workers Union, consequently the claimants and each of them were members of a grade or class of workers some of whom actively participated in the labor dispute which caused the stoppage of work.'
On these facts the Review Board concluded and adjudged that the appellants and each of them are not qualified for relief by reason of § 1504 of the Indiana Employment Security Act, Burns' Stat. § 52-1539c. which provides as follows:
'An individual shall be ineligible for waiting period or benefit rights: For any week with respect to which the board finds that his total or partial or part-total unemployment is due to a stoppage of work which exists because of a labor dispute at the factory, establishment, or other premises at which he was last employed; Provided, That this section shall not apply if it is shown to the satisfaction of the board that: He is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the labor dispute which caused the stoppage of work; and he does not belong to a grade or class of workers of which, immediately before the commencement of the stoppage, there were members employed at the premises at which the stoppage occurs, any of whom are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute; and he has not voluntarily stopped working, other than at the direction of his employer, in sympathy with employees in some other establishment or factory in which a labor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Employment Sec. Commission
...are Huiet v. Boyd, 64 Ga.App. 564, 13 S.E.2d 863; In re Steelman, 219 N.C. 306, 13 S.E.2d 544; or Abshier v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Sec. Div., 122 Ind.App. 425, 105 N.E.2d 902, persuasive, since in those cases it appears that the existence of grades or classes within the meaning......
-
Ex parte McCleney
...the mere presence of the pickets is not enough to excuse claimants from crossing picket lines.' Followed in Abshier v. Review Board of Indiana, 122 Ind.App. 425, 105 N.E.2d 902. And the fact that violence erupted After these claimants had refused to cross the picket line cannot bolster thei......
-
Lewis v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
...employer. Blakley v. Review Board of Ind. Empl. Sec. Div. (1950) 120 Ind.App. 257, 90 N.E.2d 353; Abshier v. Review Board of Ind. Empl. Sec. Div. (1952) 122 Ind.App. 425, 105 N.E.2d 902. Moreover, the burden is upon the claimant to show that he left his job voluntarily with good cause. Nati......
-
Achenbach v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division, 30206
...have been reasonable and genuine. The fear of violence must be real and not nebulous or imaginary. Abshier v. Review Bd., Emp. Sec. Div. (1952), 122 Ind.App. 425, 431, 105 N.E.2d 902. A mere verbal refusal by the pickets under the circumstances here is not sufficient to excuse claimants-app......