ACF Industries, Inc. v. Industrial Commission
Decision Date | 04 February 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 29965,29965 |
Citation | 309 S.W.2d 676 |
Parties | ACF INDUSTRIES, Incorporated (Plaintiff), Appellant, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF MISSOURI, Donald Brown, and Division of Employment Security of Missouri (Defendants), Respondents. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Arnot L. Sheppard, Herbert E. Bryant, Wm. R. Gentry, St. Louis, for appellant.
George Schwartz, Jefferson City, for respondent Division of Employment Security.
Lloyd G. Poole, Jefferson City, for respondent Industrial Commission of Missouri.
This is an action for judicial review of a decision of the Industrial Commission of Missouri as provided for in Section 288.210. (All statutory references are to RSMo 1957 Supplement, V.A.M.S.) Claimant, Donald Brown, sought to recover unemployment compensation for five weeks immediately subsequent to January 7, 1957. The Commission's Deputy found that claimant was eligible for unemployment benefits in accordance with his claim. The appeals tribunal for the Division of Employment Security affirmed. Appellant, ACF Industries, Incorporated, requested a review of said decision by the Industrial Commission. The latter denied said application, with the result that, under Section 288.200, the decision of the appeals tribunal is to be regarded as the decision of the Commission. Appellant then filed its petition for review in the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court affirmed.
Respondent Brown entered appellant's employment as an electrician at its plant at 2800 DeKalb Street in June, 1956. He was laid off on November 2, 1956.
During the time that Brown was employed by appellant the latter had an agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 1. This contract was entered into on February 20, 1956, and related to its DeKalb Street plant. The agreement provided (Article II, Section 2):
'The Company recognizes the Union as the sole collective bargaining agency for all the employees at the plant as defined in this agreement with respect to wages, hours of work and other conditions of employment.'
It was also provided (Article II, Section 3):
At the time Brown was laid off he did not belong to the Union, but had paid his initiation fees.
Article IX, Section 3, of the Union contract provides:
* * *
* * *
'When an employee whose seniority has been broken by any of the causes mentioned in the aforegoing paragraph of this Article, is again hired by the Company, he begins as a new employee.'
It is provided in Article XXII, Section 1:
Section 3, of Article XXII, reads as follows:
On January 4, 1957, appellant sent Brown a letter addressed to him at 141 East Loretta, Lemay 23, Missouri. This letter read as follows:
'Please report for work at the employment office Monday, January 7, 1957, at 8:00 a. m.'
This letter was never returned to appellant by the postal authorities or anyone. On the same day the letter was mailed appellant dispatched a telegram by Western Union to Brown, also directed to 141 East Loretta, Lemay, Missouri. This telegram read as follows:
'Report for work at employment office Monday, January 7, 1957, at 8:00 a. m.'
The telegram was signed 'American Car and Foundry Company.' On the same day the telegram was sent to Brown, Western Union, in a telegram directed to appellant, reported its inability to deliver the telegram to Brown. Said telegram read:
( .'
At the time Brown was employed by the appellant he lived at 141 East Loretta, Lemay 23 (St. Louis), Missouri. He rented a room at this address. He was unmarried.
On November 12, 1956, Brown secured employment at the Mercury plant of the Ford Motor Company near Robertson, Missouri. He worked at this job until January 5, 1957, when he was laid off. During the period of his employment at the Mercury plant he rented a room at a rooming house in Robertson. About once a week he would go to the Lemay address for his mail and for clothes, etc. On January 5, the day he was laid off at the Mercury plant, he changed his abode to 2218 South Broadway. He did not thereafter call at the Lemay address for his mail or belongings until January 14, 1957. Prior to January 14, 1957, he did not notify appellant of the change in his address.
Brown testified that he did not notify the Post Office of the change of his address from 141 East Loretta, Lemay 23, Missouri, to 2218 South Broadway, until about a week after he made the move to the latter address. When he filed his claim for unemployment compensation on January 8, 1957, he gave as his address 141 East Loretta, St. Louis 23, Missouri. He stated that the last time he spent the night at the Lemay address was sometime around the end of December, 1956.
On January 14, 1957, Brown went to the Lemay address for his mail. When he arrived there he found the letter of January 4, 1957. On the same day (January 14, 1957), according to his testimony, he went to appellant's plant and made inquiry about his employment status. He was informed that his name had been removed from the seniority list and his job filled.
Irving Margol, appellant's employment manager, testified that Brown's visit was on January 17, and that his name had been dropped from the company's rolls on January 14, 1957, for failure to answer the recall to work. He stated that: 'according to our Union contract, which provides that an employee has five days to answer a recall, and since the five days had elapsed and he did not report by the 14th, he was then dropped from our rolls.'
There is some question in the testimony about just what happened when Brown came to appellant's plant to discuss the matter of returning to work. Brown testified that he thought he talked to appellant's personnel representative Margol.
Mr. Margol stated that on January 17, 1957, Brown came into the office and that he talked to Brown personally. He testified:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Iowa Malleable Iron Co. v. Iowa Employment Sec. Commission, 54735
...juristic field it is understood one cannot be deemed to have declined an offer never communicated to him. See ACF Industries v. Industrial Commission, 309 S.W.2d 676, 680 (Mo.); 1 Corbin on Contracts, §§ 11, 56, 59; Restatement, Contracts, § 23; 17 Am.Jur., Contracts, § 31; 17 C.J.S Contrac......
-
Ross v. Whelan Sec. Co.
...656 S.W.2d 812 (Mo. App.1983); Ferry v. Labor and Indus. Relations Comm'n of Mo., 652 S.W.2d 728 (Mo.App.1983); ACF Indus., Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, 309 S.W.2d 676 (Mo.App.1958); and Donnelly Garment Co., 354 Mo. 1138, 193 S.W.2d 577. The application of this section has only been considered i......
-
Hinkeldey v. Cities Service Oil Co.
...that a proposal does not become an offer until it is actually communicated to the offeree by the offeror, citing ACF Industries v. Industrial Commission, Mo.App., 309 S.W.2d 676; Brown v. Childers, Mo.App., 254 S.W.2d 275, and Restatement of Contracts § 23; that one cannot accept an offer w......
-
Bussmann Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Commission, Division of Employment Sec.
...Section 288.020 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., requires a liberal construction of the Employment Security Law. ACF Industries, Inc. v. Industrial Commission of Missouri, Mo.App., 309 S.W.2d 676, reversed on other grounds, Mo., 320 S.W.2d 484. Since the provisions of Section 288.050, subd. 1(1), supra......