Bucko v. J. F. Quest Foundry Co.
| Decision Date | 24 June 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 34921.,34921. |
| Citation | 38 N.W.2d 223,229 Minn. 131 |
| Parties | BUCKO v. J. F. QUEST FOUNDRY CO. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Dorsey, Colman, Barker, Scott & Barber and Henry Halladay and Horace Hitch, Minneapolis, for relator.
Thomas O. Kachelmacher, Minneapolis, for respondent.
J. A. A. Burnquist, Attorney General, K. D. Stalland, Assistant Attorney General (George W. Olson, St. Paul, of counsel), for director-respondent.
William D. Gunn, St. Paul — filed a brief as amicus curiae on behalf of Minnesota State Federation of Labor.
Certiorari to review a decision of the director of the division of employment and security.
The material facts are not in dispute. Relator operates a foundry in the city of Minneapolis. Relator's employes are members of Local No. 176 of International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America, which, for brevity, will be referred to hereinafter as the union. For purposes of more effectively bargaining with the union, several Minneapolis employers operating foundries associated themselves together. They are members of and represented by an employers association called The Associated Industries of Minneapolis. This association has as its members numerous employers engaged in a great variety of industries. During the time material to this case, relator and 11 other foundry operators whose employes were members of the union named above were members of this association. The association was a rather loosely formed organization. Any member could withdraw at any time, either during negotiations with the union or at any other time, simply by notifying the other members that it wished to withdraw. As long as they remained members, it appears that they were to be bound by a majority vote of the membership in the association. During 1947-1948, relator, together with eight other employers, had a contract with the union. Substantially similar contracts were signed individually by the other three members.
On January 29, 1948, the union served notice on the employers, through their bargaining agent, that it desired to negotiate changes in the contract then in force. On January 31, the employers, through their bargaining agent, likewise served notice on the union that they in turn desired to negotiate changes in the contract.
In conducting its affairs, the union had a strike committee on which the employes of each of the employers involved had representation, as well as those members of the union whose employers were in the same industry but who did not belong to the association. After some fruitless negotiations between the association and the union, a vote was taken by the union among all its members present at a meeting on March 4, which resulted in a general authorization being granted to the strike committee to call a strike at any of the foundry plants involved. Participating in this vote were employes of the 12 foundries which were members of the association and also other union members who were employes of foundries not belonging to the association. The strike committee likewise was not limited to union members whose employers belonged to the association. Subsequent to the vote so taken, the strike committee was in charge of calling strikes, and no separate vote was taken among the employes of an individual employer before a strike was called, although it appears that the union did ascertain the wishes of the employes of any employer before a strike was called at that particular plant. Generally, however, the representative on the strike committee spoke for all the employes of the plant at which he worked.
On March 4, 1948, the union caused a notice of intention to strike to be filed with the state labor conciliator, in which 10 of the 12 employers belonging to the association were named, and contemporaneously therewith it filed an indentical notice covering the other two of the 12 employers of the association. Thereafter, negotiations continued between the union and the employers with the assistance of the state labor conciliator. Some progress was made toward a settlement. On April 10, a joint offer made on behalf of the 12 employers was submitted. This proposal was rejected by the union membership. Negotiations continued with the aid of the federal conciliator. The union was then advised that the employers would consider a strike against any of the 12 as a strike against all.
On April 13, the 12 employers, through their association, prepared and thereafter filed with the labor conciliator a notice of intention to lock out, which so far as material here reads:
The position taken by the employers with respect to their intention to lock out all shops if a strike was called against less than all of them was known generally to all employes and the union prior to the calling of any strike.
On April 14, the strike committee called a strike against two of the 12 employers, and on April 16 a strike was called against the third of such employers.
On April 22, the employes of the remaining nine employers were notified that there would be no further work until the dispute was settled, and on April 26 these nine foundries shut down and posted notices on their doors that there would be no further work.
Prior to calling any strike, the union had procured "strike sanction" from the international union, thereby qualifying for strike benefits those employes who were out of work on account of the dispute. It also obtained approval from the Minneapolis Central Labor Union. During the strike, all employes who did not procure work elsewhere received from $10 to $15 per week benefits from the union, and those who procured work elsewhere were assessed $5 per week, which the union disbursed to those who were unemployed. Such benefits were paid to the employes of the three plants involved directly in the strike and also to the employes of the nine other plants that had shut down.
After the commencement of the strike, pickets were posted at the places of ingress to and egress from the foundry against which the strike was called, showing that a strike was in process, and pickets were also posted around the plants that were shut down stating that a lockout was in process.
The employes of the nine plants against which no strike had been called were willing to continue working at the time the doors of these plants were closed.
On May 28, a proposal was made by the employers for a resumption of work pending continued negotiations for a permanent settlement, under which proposal concessions were made granting increases in pay over the old contract. This proposal was confirmed in writing the following day. Among other provisions, it contains these paragraphs:
The proposal was rejected by the union membership.
Subsequent to the shutdown, some 60 employes of the nine employers against whom no strike had been called by the union filed claims for unemployment compensation benefits. No claim was made by the employes of the three plants against which a strike had been called. Because of the large number of claims involved, the matter was referred directly to the appeal tribunal without an individual administrative determination of validity. The appeal tribunal found and determined that the claimants were eligible for unemployment compensation. On appeal to the director, the decision was affirmed. By stipulation of the parties, it was agreed that the question of the validity of all claims involved the same determination of applicable law and that an appeal should be taken in one case only, the decision in that case to govern all so far as the legal phases of the claim were concerned. The decision comes here for review upon certiorari.
1. The scope of our review is governed by the rules laid down in State ex rel. Dybdal v. State Securities Comm., 145 Minn. 221, 176 N.W. 759, followed in Bowman v. Troy Launderers & Cleaners, Inc., 215 Minn. 226, 9 N.W.2d 506. In the Dybdal case, we stated the rule to be, 145 Minn. 225, 176 N.W. 761:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial