Bruley v. Florida Indus. Commission, 57-324

• Decision Date: 27 February 1958
• Docket Number: No. 57-324,57-324
• Citation: 101 So.2d 22
• Parties: George L. BRULEY, Appellant, v. FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 22

101 So.2d 22

George L. BRULEY, Appellant, v. FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Appellee.

No. 57-324.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 27, 1958.

Herbert H. Hutner, Miami, for appellant.

Burnis T. Coleman, Tallahassee, for appellee.

CARROLL, CHAS., Chief Judge.

Denial of a compensation claim under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Chapter 443, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., was followed by a petition for review in the Circuit Court of Dade County, under section 443.07(4)(e). The circuit court affirmed, and the matter is before us on appeal from that order.

The facts upon which the matter was determined are simple. Appellant was employed as a bartender, at the Roney Plaza Hotel in Miami Beach, for approximately a year and a half before a strike which began in April of 1955. He quit his job and participated in the strike, and was paid strike benefits for a number of weeks.

In December of that year he became employed on a regular basis as bartender in another hotel called the Blue Waters Hotel. He continued to work at the Blue Waters Hotel until he was discharged nine months later. It was following his discharge from that last employment that he made application for the unemployment compensation which was denied him.

The controlling question, which was before the circuit court and is before this court, is whether the appellant's status of unemployment after he was discharged from the Blue Waters Hotel was due to the labor dispute still in progress at the Roney Plaza Hotel, or simply because he had been discharged from his job at the Blue Waters Hotel.

The administrative decision adverse to the appellant, which he sought to reverse in the circuit court and here, was based on construction of Section 443.06(4), Fla.Stat., F.S.A., which reads as follows:

'An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:

'(4) For any week with respect to which the commission finds that his total or partial unemployment is due to a labor dispute in active progress which exists at the factory, establishment or other premises at which he is or was last employed; provided, that this subsection shall not apply if it is shown to the satisfaction of the commission that:

'(a) He is not participating in or financing, or directly interested in the labor dispute which is in active progress; provided, however, that the payment of regular union dues shall not be construed as financing a labor dispute within the meaning of this section; and * * *.'

The circuit court's affirmance was without opinion, but the commission's order was based on the findings and opinion of an appeals referee which contained the following:

'Reasons For Decision: The Florida Unemployment Compensation Law provides that an individual shall be disqualified for benefits if it is found that his unemployment is due to a labor dispute in active progress which exists at the factory, establishment or other premises at which he is or was last employed; provided that this subsection shall not apply if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commission that (a) he is not participating in or financing or directly interested in a labor dispute which is in active progress; and (b) he does not belong to a grade or class of workers of which immediately before the commencement of the labor dispute there were members employed at the premises at which the labor dispute occurs, any of whom are participating in, or financing, or directly interested in the dispute.

'The record and evidence of the instant case clearly show that claimant left a permanent year-around job due to a labor dispute that commenced at the premises of his employer on April 15, 1955. As the appellant had worked for such employer for a continuous period of approximately twenty months immediately prior to the date...