Adamski v. State, Bureau of Unemployment Compensation

• Decision Date: 24 February 1959
• Citation: 108 Ohio App. 198,161 N.E.2d 907
• Parties: , 9 O.O.2d 220 ADAMSKI et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Ohio, BUREAU OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION et al., Appellees. * BAHNSON et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Ohio, BUREAU OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION et al., Appellees. *
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 198

108 Ohio App. 198

161 N.E.2d 907, 9 O.O.2d 220

ADAMSKI et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Ohio, BUREAU OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION et al., Appellees. ^*

BAHNSON et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Ohio, BUREAU OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION et al., Appellees. *

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Lucas County.

Feb. 24, 1959.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The test or rule to be observed in the construction of the language of Section 4141.29(C), Revised Code, comprehends the geographic location of 'the factory, establishment, or other premises,' or physical proximity or functional integrality combined with other circumstances comprising elements to be considered from the standpoint of the scheme of management, supervision, production of each plant, authority of those operating the plant, hiring, paying and discharging employees, methods of making purchases and sales, and all other relevant and kindred matters.

2. A presumption prevails that the Legislature had full knowledge and information as to the subject matter of the statute and the existing conditions and relevant facts relating thereto, such as the structure of modern industry, its business establishment, large as well as small, and the ramification of its manufacturing process.

3. Claimants for unemployment compensation benefits have the burden of proving their eligibility under the statute, without disqualification, to unemployment benefits.

4. It is beyond the prerogative of a court, in consideration of the language of a statute, to enlarge or restrict the meaning of the words therein under the guise of interpretation or construction thereof.

5. The intent or purpose of a statute is to be chiefly gathered from the language employed in such statute. If it is remedial statute it is to be liberally construed in favor of persons to be benefited, but a liberal construction should not result in the exercise of the legislative power of amendment under the mask of so-called interpretation.

6. To read into a statute a legislative meaning or intent which digresses from the scope and application thereof, reasonably demonstrated by the language used, constitutes an impingement, trespass and erosion by the judiciary of the sole prerogative of the Legislature, representative of the will of the people, to enact the law within the framework of the Constitution.

Francis F. Reno, Toledo, for claimants.

Wm. Saxbe, former Atty. Gen. of Ohio, for Bureau of Unemployment Compensation.

Marshall, Melhorn, Bloch & Belt, Toledo, for Champion Spark Plug Co.

SMITH, Judge.

Two cases are before this court on appeals on questions of law from the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County, in which the appellants, some 630 in number, are all similarly situated on claims of benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Act of Ohio. The two cases are based on substantially identical records filed in this court, were heard together and will be referred to in the singular. Our conclusion reached in this opinion will be dispositive of both cases.

The appellants, hereinafter called claimants, are all employees of the Champion Spark Plug Company, Toledo, Ohio. Their claims for benefits were rejected by the administrator, and the board of review upheld the administrator. Upon appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, that court affirmed the board of review. No question is raised as to any procedural defects in the several appeals.

The sole question we are called upon to decide is whether the facts revealed in the record sustain the finding of the administrator and board of review that, under the provisions of Section 4141.29(C)(2), Revised Code (126 Ohio Laws, 337, 352), claimants' unemployment was caused by a labor dispute (other than a lockout) at the factory, establishment or other premises at which they were employed. There is no evidence, and it is not contended by claimants, that a lockout is involved in the case.

The facts revealed by the record are not in conflict. Counsel argue on the law, without material disputation of the facts.

The board of review found that claimants were last employed by the Champion Spark Plug Company in Toledo, Ohio, and filed claims for benefits during a period subsequent to January 10, 1956; that the Champion Spark Plug Company is a corporation doing business in Toledo, with a plant or division in Hamtramck, Michigan, in the Detroit, Michigan, area, approximately 50 or 60 miles distant; that the Champion Spark Plug Company has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with local unions in each plant, being Local No. 12 in Toledo and Local No. 272 in Hamtramck, Michigan, connected with the parent union, UAW-CIO; that the Toledo plant received ceramic insulators, used in the assembly of its product of spark plugs, from the Hamtramck plant which supplies a major portion of the requirement of the Toledo plant in producing the finished product; that a labor dispute, other than a lockout, occurred at the Hamtramck or Detroit ceramic division on January 10, 1956, over the collective bargaining issues of wages, contract and fringe matters; that by reason of the existence of the labor dispute at the Hamtramck plant, the Toledo plant had its supply of ceramic insulators curtailed to a large degree, and as a consequence claimants lost their employment because of those circumstances; that the labor dispute in the Hamtramck plant was settled on February 29, 1956; that the supply of ceramic insulators from the Hamtramck plant was resumed at once, and the Toledo plant returned to almost full production the following day; and that the major layoff did not occur at the Toledo plant until February 3, 1956, at which time the supply of insulators on hand and workable was exhausted.

The findings of fact are supported by the record. The secretary of Champion Spark Plug Company, T. A. Hill, testified that the company is a corporation with its main plant located in Toledo, Ohio, and manufactures spark plugs; that its manufacture of spark plugs is started at the Toledo plant but the insulators and cement drives are manufactured at the ceramic division, department or auxiliary plant of the company at Hamtramck, Michigan, a part of the same corporation; that the ceramic plant is under the control of the Toledo offices, all the offices of the corporation being located at Toledo, Ohio; that the insulators and cement drives are transported to the Toledo plant from the Hamtramck plant; that the production of spark plugs at Toledo plant depends on the insulators produced at the Hamtramck plant; that the insulators and silliment are used in Champion spark plugs and no other; that the Hamtramck plant does not have any sales or advertising departments of its own; that the function of the ceramic plant at Hamtramck is to produce insulators and silliment drives essential in the production of spark plugs, and the Toledo plant would not be able to continue functioning without the operation of the Hamtramck plant; that Champion Spark Plug Company maintains a personnel department at the Toledo, Ohio, office, which is responsible for personnel problems both at the Toledo and Hamtramck plants, and for labor negotiations; and that under date of February 2, 1956, as secretary of Champion Spark Plug Company, he sent a letter to the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation at Toledo, Ohio, in which it is stated that Champion Spark Plug Company at its Toledo plant receives the major portion of the ceramic insulators, which are used in the assembly of its sole production of spark plugs, from its ceramic division located on Butler Street, Detroit, Michigan (Hamtramck plant); that the ceramic division is part of the Champion Spark Plug Company, the main offices of which are in Toledo, Ohio; that the employees of the ceramic division have been on strike since January 10, 1956, over collective bargaining issues of wages, contract and fringe matters; that due to this strike the Toledo plant of Champion Spark Plug Company will not have a sufficient number of ceramic insulators to provide work for all its present work forces; and that unless the ceramic division dispute is settled by Saturday, February 3, 1956, it will be necessary to lay off approximately 1,000 workers, effective either on Monday, February 6, or Tuesday, February 7, 1956.

The testimony of George S. Hillier, production superintendent at Hamtramck ceramic division, corroborates the testimony of T. A. Hill, secretary of the company, and further shows that all the patents on machinery at the Hamtramck plant belong to Champion Spark Plug Company, and that nobody else does the work in its particular way; that trucks are sent from Toledo plant to pick up the supply of insulators; that schedules for their production come from Mr. Shedley, at Toledo, Ohio, who sends him a schedule each month and converses with him on the telephone as to what is needed and especially when there is a shortage; that the strike at the Hamtramck plant occurred on January 10, 1956, and ended February 29, 1956, around noon, at which time production was immediately resumed; that at the time trucks were loaded with over a million insulators which were transported to Toledo plant; and that some business connections exist with two separate corporations in Hollerton, Pennsylvania, and Canada.

The testimony of Kermit Schoettley, production manager of Champion Spark Plug Company, shows that the scheduled production of spark plugs at Toledo plant is dependent upon the flow of insulators and silliment from ceramics division at Hamtramck; that it is a part of his duties to synchronize and integrate the production both at Hamtramck and Toledo plants; that on January 10, 1956, the supply of insulators from the Hamtramck plant was stopped, and Mr. Hillier advised that there would be no more insulators until further notice, because of work stoppage or strike at Hamtramck; that immediately he rescheduled production of spark plugs in Toledo plant; that normal operations at the Toledo...