Bogue Elec. Co. v. Board of Review of Division of Employment Sec. of Dept. of Labor and Industry
| Decision Date | 07 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. A--124,A--124 |
| Parties | BOGUE ELECTRIC CO., Appellant-Respondent, v. BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY of the State of New Jersey, and William A. McKenna, John Kammerer, Albert C. Horne, Anthony Colazzo, Michael Lomuti, Respondents-Appellants. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Clarence F. McGovern, Jersey City, for respondents-appellants.
Gerald M. Freundlich, Paterson, for appellant-respondent.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The Board of Review of the Division of Unemployment Security, State Department of Labor, petitioned for certification from a judgment of the Appellate Division, Superior Court, and we granted certification. R.R. 1:10--2(e). The Board of Review has the right to appeal an adverse judgment and the claimants not joining in the application for certification are parties to this appeal. N.J.S.A. 43:21--6(h).
The Board of Review had reversed the decisions of its Appeal Tribunal disallowing the claims for benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21--5(b). It held that the claimants were eligible for benefits under this section, since the stoppage of work was not due to a labor dispute as defined by N.J.S.A. 43:21--5(d), and that a strike or walkout by a group of employees, whether sanctioned by their labor union or not, was not such misconduct as would disqualify the claimants from benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21--5(b). The Appellate Division reversed and held that the acts in question were such disqualifying misconduct and the applicants, McKenna, Kammerer, Lomuti and Colazzo disqualified for benefits and remanded the claim of Horne to the Board of Review for the purpose of taking further evidence.
All the facts are stated in the opinion of the Appellate Division, Board of Review, etc., v. Bogue Electric Co., 37 N.J.Super. 535, 117 A.2d 669 (App.Div.1955), so we shall briefly state such salient facts necessary for our decision. On December 4, 1954 the employer, Bogue Electric Company, discharged one Green, an employee and shop steward for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 867. On December 6, 1954 a number of the employees walked off their jobs at 9:00 a.m. in protest against the discharge of Green, so that there was a cessation of work by a number of employees. The employer immediately removed from the racks the time cards of all persons absent from their posts and this action had the effect of preventing them from returning to work. The same evening they were all discharged by telegram.
N.J.S.A. 43:21--5(b) provides as follows:
'An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: * * *
'(b) For the week in which he has been discharged for Misconduct connected with his work, and for the five weeks which immediately follow such week (in addition to the waiting period), as determined in each case.' (Italics supplied.)
The collective bargaining agreement governing the terms and conditions of employment by the employer of members of Local 867 contained the following provisions:
We are in accord with the conclusion of the Appellate Division that the cessation of work under the factual situation presented here was such misconduct connected with the employees' work so as to disqualify them from benefits under N.J.S.A. 43:21--5(b).
The appellant, Board of Review, argues that there was a labor dispute in the plant and N.J.S.A. 43:21--5(b) does not apply to activities in a labor dispute. The argument is that if this section takes a union-sanctioned strike out of the misconduct class the same should apply to one not sanctioned by the union because the statute deals with the individual claimants rather than labor unions and there is nothing in the statute which gives a union-sanctioned strike any different status than one called by individuals.
The basis question is what acts of an employee constitute the 'misconduct connected with his work' that disqualify an employee from benefits for the periods fixed by N.J.S.A. 43:21--5(b). Paragraph (d) of the same section disqualifies an employee only when unemployment is the result of a work stoppage as defined therein resulting from a labor dispute. The problem is one of statutory interpretation, and as we have stated our province is merely to interpret and apply this act to particular situations as they are presented, keeping in mind the general policy of the act, but we are not permitted by construction to lessen or broaden the scope of the statute, and must construe it as written. Gerber v. Board of Review, etc., 20 N.J. 561, 566, 120 A.2d 436 (1956).
The motive that led to the enactment of the statute and the declared policy therein is the key to the understanding of the statute, and the public policy upon which it is based is to achieve social security by affording protection against a hazard in our economic life by relieving economic insecurity due to involuntary unemployment. Glover v. Simmons Co., 17 N.J. 313, 111 A.2d 404 (1955). We find nothing in the statute that indicates that employees are entitled to finance a labor dispute under the Unemployment Compensation Act. See Campbell Soup Co. v. Board of Review, Division of Employment Security, 13 N.J. 431, 436, 100 A.2d 287, 289 (1953), where we stated, 'The statute is designed to serve the general public interest and not alone the interest of the unemployed.'
While we agree with the Board of Review that the meaning of the term 'misconduct' in the statute is not to be determined by what is set forth in a private collective bargaining agreement, nevertheless a collective bargaining agreement is the joint and several contract of the members of the union made by the officers of the union as their agents. It is enforceable by and against individual members of the union in matters which affect them peculiarly; and it is enforceable by or against the union in matters which affect all the members alike or large classes of members, particularly those who are employees of the other party to the contract. Christiansen v. Local 680 of Milk Drivers, etc., 126 N.J.Eq. 508, 512, 10 A.2d 168 (Ch.1940); cf. Kennedy v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 16 N.J. 280, 108 A.2d 409 (1954). It establishes certain norms or standards by which the rights and duties of the employer and employees are evaluated and it is to be construed with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dixon v. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
... ... in maintaining the confidentiality of peer review materials used in its tenure and promotion ... affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division as modified. Dixon v. Rutgers Univ., 215 ... ]." Four months later, however, the Board of Governors of the University decided to award ... ] outweighed by "the demands of fair employment," and noted that such disclosure would "always ... upon the employees covered by it, see Bogue v. Board of Review, 21 N.J. 431, 435, 122 A.2d ... ...
-
Rochinsky v. State, Dept. of Transp.
... ... in maintaining the confidentiality of peer review materials used in its tenure and promotion ... affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division as modified. Dixon v. Rutgers Univ., 215 ... ]." Four months later, however, the Board of Governors of the University decided to award ... ] outweighed by "the demands of fair employment," and noted that such disclosure would "always ... upon the employees covered by it, see Bogue v. Board of Review, 21 N.J. 431, 435, 122 A.2d ... ...
-
Jantausch v. Borough of Verona
... ... and Verona Board of Adjustment, New Jersey, Defendants ... No ... Superior Court of New Jersey ... Law Division ... July 12, 1956 ... [124 ... action in lieu of prerogative writ to review the decision of the board ... Bogue Electric Co. v. Board of Review, etc., 21 N.J ... sought to be advanced is between employment and self-employment, and nothing in the ordinance ... and licensing by the State Department of Labor and Industry. R.S. 34:6--120 et seq., N.J.S.A ... 1950), sec. 25.72, p. 123; 1 Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice ... ...
-
Worcester Telegram Pub. Co. v. Director of Division of Employment Sec.
... ... The Telegram sought review. See G.L. c. 151A §§ 39, 40 ... board of review affirmed the director's decision. It ... 507] 'jurisdiction to go into the merits of labor disputes for the purpose of placing the blame * * ... Inc., 121 N.L.R.B. 1317, 1320; Arlan's Dept. Store of Mich. Inc., 133 N.L.R.B. 802, 805-807; ... 195, 200-201, 277 P.2d 1010; Bogue Elec. Co. v. Board of Review, 21 N.J. 431, ... ...