Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Durkin

• Decision Date: 11 June 1942
• Docket Number: No. 26286.,26286.
• Citation: 42 N.E.2d 541,380 Ill. 11
• Parties: CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO. v. DURKIN, Director of Labor, et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

380 Ill. 11

42 N.E.2d 541

CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO.

v.DURKIN, Director of Labor, et al.

No. 26286.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 11, 1942.

Proceeding under the Unemployment Compensation Act by the Caterpillar Tractor Company against Martin P. Durkin, Director of Labor, and others. To review a judgment approving a decision of the Director of Labor allowing unemployment benefits to strikers, plaintiff brings error.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

SMITH, J., dissenting.Error to Circuit Court, Tazewell County; Henry J. Ingram, judge.

Miller, Westervelt, Johnson & Guenther, of Peoria (Eugene R. Johnson, of Peoria, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen. (Albert E. Hallett, Jr., of Chicago, of counsel), for defendants in error.

FARTHING, Justice.

This is a case arising under the Unemployment Compensation Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1941, chap. 48, par. 217 et seq.). Plaintiff in error filed a petition for writ of error to review the judgment of the circuit court of Tazewell county which approved a decision of the Director of Labor, who allowed unemployment benefits to strikers at plaintiff in error's factory. While the petition was pending, the legislature amended the Unemployment Compensation Act so as to authorize an appeal to this court. It is therefore immaterial whether the cause be styled a writ of error or an appeal.

Plaintiff in error, the Caterpillar Tractor Company, is a California corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of tractors, road machinery and diesel engines. The defendants in error are the Director of Labor and 108 individuals formerly employed by plaintiff in error in its pattern shop at its factory in East Peoria, Illinois.

Prior to November 18, 1940, plaintiff in error employed at its East Peoria plant 11,750 employees, 10,000 of whom were engagedin manufacturing operations. One of the departments of the factory is the pattern shop. It has its own superintendent and is the only department at the factory with a separate maintenance crew. Plaintiff in error conducts an apprentice training school for the pattern shop workers whose course of instruction is different from that given to other employees. The employees of the pattern shop use a time clock located within the shop. The work of the pattern shop is to make patterns from which grey iron castings are moulded. There are in existence throughout the country pattern shops not connected with any foundry which make a business of supplying patterns to foundries and manufacturing plants. During the peak periods when its own shop is overloaded, plaintiff in error buys some patterns from these independent shops.

A wage dispute arose, and on November 18, 1940, the 108 pattern makers went out on a strike. Some work was continued in the pattern shop by apprentices until November 20, 1940, when it ceased entirely. The rest of the factory continued work.

The sole question involved in this case is whether the striking pattern shop employees are entitled to benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Act.

Section 1 of the act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1941, chap. 48, par. 217) contains a statement of the public policy of the State as an aid to the interpretation and application of the act. It says, ‘Economic insecurity due to involuntary unemployment has become a serious menace to the health, safety, morals and welfare of the people of the State of Illinois. Involuntary unemployment is, therefore, a subject of general interest and concern which requires appropriate action by the legislature to prevent its spread and to lighten its burden which now so often falls with crushing force upon the unemployed worker and his family.’

From this declaration of public policy it would seem that the legislature intended that only those who were involuntarily unemployed should receive unemployment compensation. One who strikes becomes voluntarily unemployed. Kemp v. Division No. 241, 255 Ill. 213, 99 N.E. 389, Ann.Cas.1913D, 347;...