Chrysler Corp. v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec. Division, 18029

• Decision Date: 22 May 1950
• Docket Number: No. 18029,18029
• Citation: 120 Ind.App. 425,92 N.E.2d 565
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Parties: CHRYSLER CORPORATION v. REVIEW BOARD OF INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION et al.

Page 565

92 N.E.2d 565

120 Ind.App. 425

CHRYSLER CORPORATION v.REVIEW BOARD OF INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION et al.

No. 18029.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

May 22, 1950.

Scotten & Hinshaw, New Castle, for appellant.

Taylor, Kurrie & Quinn, Indianapolis, for Homer Abbott et al.

ROYSE, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from an award of the majority of the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division granting certain employees unemployment compensation benefits for the week ending June 5, 1948.(Hereinafter the appellant will be referred to as the employer, the Review Board as the Board, and the other appellees as the employees.)

The Board's statement of fact may be summarized as follows: The employer operates a large manufacturing plant in New Castle.A dispute on a national scale between the employer and U.A.W.--C.I.O. over wages and working conditions affecting production and maintenance employees resulted in a strike effective May 12, 1948 on which day production ceased and was not resumed until June 7, 1948.

It was stipulated by the parties that all the employees herein were participating or directly interested in the strike which existed at the employer's New Castle plant from May 12, 1948 to midnight May 28, 1948.The issue is confined to the eligibility of these employees for benefits for the week ending June 5, 1948.

The employer contends the stoppage for said week was caused by a stoppage of work due to the labor dispute for the weeks ending May 15th, 22nd and 29th, 1948; that their inability to start full scale operations on June 1, 1948 was caused by the necessity of examining and checking its machinery and equipment to determine its condition and to bring the heat up in the furnaces to the proper temperature.

The employees contend they are entitled to benefits for said week because of their availability for work and that their unemployment was due to the employer's acts of delay in not having its said plant ready for operation for said week ending June 5, 1948.

After receiving notice of the strike settlement the plant manager called his top supervisors to a conference at the plant at the plant at 7:30 a.m.May 29, 1948 to discuss the resumption of operations.It was there decided to prepare the plant for the start of full production on Monday, June 7, 1948.

Conflicting testimony was offered by the parties as to how long it would take to prepare the plant for full production.This testimony was based on speculation because the conditions existing at the time had never existed before.The plant could not be in production while an inventory was being taken.When the strike was settled this plant was in the middle of an inventory which was commenced a few days before the strike ended.The necessity for the inventory was not the result of a labor dispute and it was not completed until June 3, 1948.

The employer made no effort prior to June 1st to prepare its plant for resumption of work.The employees were available for work for the week ending June 5th and none of the production or maintenance men refused to report for work when called or in any way signified their unwillingness to work any time subsequent to midnight May 28, 1948.Upon the foregoing statement of facts a majority of the Board, one member dissenting, found the employees were entitled to benefits for the week ending June 5, 1948.

Originally this case involved two classes of employees--veterans and non-veterans.The first hearing before the Referee included both classes.The Referee found in favor of both classes.As heretofore indicated, the Board in this case affirmed the award of the Referee.In the veterans' case the Readjustment Allowance Agent for Indiana reversed the award of the Referee.

Appellant contends here the award of the Board is contrary to law because the undisputed facts show that all the 'make ready' work done by appellant during the week ending June 5, 1948 was necessary to place the plant in operating condition; that it was necessary to do this 'make ready' work because of a labor dispute caused by the fact the employees Union had withdrawn all power house and maintenance employees from its plant during the period of the strike; that no more time was used on this work than was reasonably required to physically resume normal operations at the plant.

There is no serious dispute between the parties as to the law which governs this case.The real question before us is: Are the facts in the record sufficient to sustain the award?We do not deem it necessary to cite authority to the proposition that if there is any substantial evidence to support the award, or if the reasonable inferences therefrom sustain the award, it is our duty to affirm.

With that rule as our guide, we proceed to a consideration of the facts as disclosed by the record and the law applicable thereto.

The employer's plant manager was advised from Detroit between 10:30 and midnight May 28th that the strike had been settled.He immediately made an effort to get in touch with some of the key supervisors.He could not get these men until early Saturday morning, May 29th, when a meeting was held in the plant.The meeting started about 7:30 a. m. They discussed plans for getting the men into the plant as soon as possible.Under the Union Constitution, before a strike can be called off such action must be approved by a secret majority vote of the local.In a conference with a senior officer of the Union prior to the strike, the employer's plant manager told this officer that if the Union did not permit the power house men and maintenance employees to enter the plant it would undoubtedly delay the re-opening of the plant for production.When the strike was called the Union refused to permit power house or maintenance men to enter the plant.In previous strikes these employees were permitted in the...