American Steel Foundries v. Gordon

• Decision Date: 21 November 1949
• Docket Number: 31009.,Nos. 31008,s. 31008
• Citation: American Steel Foundries v. Gordon, 404 Ill. 174, 88 N.E.2d 465 (Ill. 1949)
• Parties: AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES v. GORDON et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

404 Ill. 174

88 N.E.2d 465

AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES

v.GORDON et al.

Nos. 31008, 31009.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Sept. 22, 1949.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1949.

American Steel Foundries instituted proceedings against Robert L. Gordon, director of labor and others, to review a decision of the director in a proceeding under the Unemployment Compensation Act.

The Circuit Court of Madison and St. Clair Counties, E. F. Bareis, J., entered judgments confirming the decision of the director awarding benefits and the plaintiff appealed.

The Supreme Court, Per Curiam, reversed the judgments, holding that claimants were not entitled to benefits during period of about two weeks from time strike was settled until time when plaintiff got its plants into condition to resume operations.Oehmke & Dunham, East St. Louis (James H. Bandy, East St. Louis, of counsel), for appellant.

Ivan A. Elliott, Attorney General(William C. Wines, Raymond S. Sarnow, and James C. Murray, all of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee, the Director of Labor.

Arthur J. Goldberg, and Abraham W. Brussell, Chicago (Goldberg, Devoe & Brussell, of Chicago, of counsel), for other appellees.

PER CURIAM.

These appeals present for decision the construction of section 7(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Act(Ill.Rev.Stat.1947, chap. 48, par. 223,) which, to the extent relevant, ordains, ‘An individual shall be ineligible for benefits-* * * (d) For any week with respect to which it is found that his total or partial 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 is or was last employed.’

On November 10, 1948, a judgment of the circuit court of Madison County confirmed a decision of the Director of Labor finding Andrew Cole and Ann L. Turnbull eligible for benefits under section 7(d) for the period from March 7 to 21, 1946, inclusive, and quashed and dismissed the complaint filed by their employer, the American Steel Foundries, under the Administrative Review Act.A like judgment order was entered the same day by the circuit court of St. Clair County finding Jethro Brown and Joe Rasinski eligible for unemployment compensation benefits for the same period.The employer has prosecuted two separate appeals.The causes were consolidated for argument and opinion.

The plaintiff, the American Steel Foundries, owns and operates large plants at Granite City and East St. Louis for the production of specialty steel castings and similar products.In early 1946, its physical equipment at Granite City, housed in fifteen buildings, occupying fifty acres, consisted of almost one thousand units of machinery.Among the most important units housed in the buildings were three large open-hearth furnaces, ovens, electric locomotives, derricks, cranes, air hammers, and sand clinkers, powered by electricity, steam or air.In January, 1946, approximately 1,400 production and maintenance workers, in addition to office, clerical and supervisory workers, were employed at the plant.The plant at East St. Louis occupies an area of twenty acres, about forty per cent of which is under roof.Approximately 1,200 production workers were employed at this plant.

The operation of the plants depended principally upon the successful operation and functioning of the furnaces.Proper operation of the furnaces required that they be brought to their maximum heat capacity progressively by slow degrees.From eight to ten days were required to reheat a furnace after it had been permitted to cool.

The claimants in No. 31008, Andrew Cole and Ann Turnbull, and Jethro Brown and Joe Rasinski in No. 31009, had been employed by plaintiff prior to January 21, 1946, and were members, respectively, of the United Steel Workers of America, LocalNo. 1063andLocalNo. 1038, the collective bargaining units for all production and maintenance workers at the plants in Granite City and East St. Louis.The unions called a strike at both plants, effective January 21, 1946.Arrangements were made between the unions and the company's management for the ‘shut down’ of the plants and for their maintenance during the time of the ‘shut down.’Heat was withdrawn from the furnaces, equipment and machinery of all kinds were partially dismantled, greased and otherwise prepared against deterioration from non-use, utility services were disconnected, and power and water, except as necessary for maintenance, were withdrawn.Because of the cold weather extra precautions were necessary to protect the plants and their contents against the results of rust and idleness.All manufacturing operations came to a complete halt on January 21, 1946.

On March 6, 1946, the company and the unions reached an agreement settling the labor dispute and ending the strike.The company immediately made arrangements to re-open its plants.Equipment which had been dismantled required repairing because of the rapid deterioration occasioned by the cold weather and accumulation of dust in the shops.The company called all its foremen together and, with them and representatives of the employees, made plans for the manpower necessary to put all the equipment in shape, and to ready and open departments as needed to resume operations.Pursuant to these plans, employees were called in for repairs and restoration and for manning the departments first necessary in the chain of production.The reconditioning of the plants was all done by mutual agreement and arrangement between the company and representatives of the unions.Admittedly, it was neither reasonable nor physically possible to put the plants in condition for normal operations before March 21, 1946.

Production and maintenance workers made claims for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Act for an initial period of two days, January 14 and 15, 1946, and a second period from January 21 to March 7, 1946.The four claimants who are appellees here also made claims for the period from March 7 to 21, inclusive.A deputy of the Division of Placement and Unemployment Compensation held the employees ineligible for benefits during the first two periods but that the claimants were eligible for the third period.Appeals from both the ineligible and the eligible determinations were taken by the employees affected and the company, respectively.The appeals were heard together by a representative of the Director of Labor who a single report, recommending that the determinations of the deputy be affirmed.By his finding of fact No. 6, he specifically found that the unemployment for the period from March 7 to 21, 1946, was not due to a stoppage of work because of a labor dispute at the premises of the company during this period.He summarized the facts, in part, as follows: ‘The labor dispute, despite its settlement, continued to remain the sole cause of the work stoppage which persisted after March 6, 1946.Reheating the furnaces, one of many acts required to restore the plant to working order, alone necessitated eight to ten days, which, with greater speed, would expose these extremely expensive furnaces to risk of severe damage.A multitude of remaining units of machinery and equipment, by the joint errort of management and the Union, were restored to normal operative condition as rapidly as possible under existing conditions.Production and maintenance personnel were recalled as speedily as conditions warranted.In fact, it is not claimed nor urged by the Union that the Company negligently failed or wilfully refused to reach more quickly a condition of normal operations.In all, it appears clear that the Company exerted its maximum efforts following the settlement of the dispute to restore the plant to operative condition,leaving nothing undone nor erroneously done, which could be chargeable with the continued work stoppage after March 6, 1946.The labor dispute alone remained exclusively the cause of the continuing work stoppage.’The representative concluded that, under section 7(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Act, the labor dispute and the stoppage of work must coexist before benefits will be denied and, accordingly, that, for want of a labor dispute after March 6, 1946, the claimants should not be deemed ineligible for benefits.

The Director of Labor, by his decision, affirmed the deputy's determination and confirmed, adopted and made a part of his decision the entire report of his representative and specifically held that claimants were eligible for benefits under the statute from March 7 to 21, 1946, inclusive, and, conversely, not ineligible for such benefits for this period under the provisions of section 7(d).

Thereafter, the plaintiff company instituted this proceeding in the circuit court of Madison County under the Administrative Review Act to review the director's decision in favor of claimants Cole and Turnbull.The Director of Labor filed the original transcript of determinations and proceedings as his return.The circuit court, as related, confirmed the decision, and an appeal followed.

The factual situation in No. 31009 relative to the strike of the company's plant in East St. Louis, the administrative proceedings resulting in the allowance of benefits to claimants Brown and Rasinski, the judgment of the circuit court of St. Clair County, and the company's appeal to this court are parallel with the corresponding facts, administrative and judicial proceedings, and the appeal in No. 31008.

The ineligibility portion of section 7(d) has not previously been construed by this court.In ascertaining the intention of the General Assembly in enacting this and other statutory provisions, courts have recourse not only to the language used in the particular statute, but, also, to the reasons motivating its enactment, the purpose to be accomplished, and the evils, if any, to be remedied.Moyer v. Board of Education, 391 Ill. 156, 62 N.E.2d 802.To determine this intent it is necessary to read an...