City Pattern & Foundry Co. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division, No. 1269A258
| Docket Nº | No. 1269A258 |
| Citation | 263 N.E.2d 218, 147 Ind.App. 636 |
| Case Date | October 27, 1970 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 218
Co., Inc., Peerless Pattern Works, and Woodward
Pattern Works, Inc., Appellants,
v.
REVIEW BOARD OF the INDIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION,
William H. Skinner, John E. Bushart and Betty S. Barteau, as
Members of and as constituting the Review Board of the
Indiana Employment Security Division, and Jay S. Allison et
al., Appellees.
[147 Ind.App. 637]
Page 219
F. Gerard Feeney, James W. Oberfell, South Bend, for appellants.Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen. of Ind., William S. McMaster, Deputy Atty. Gen., Irving J. Smith, South Bend, for appellees.
Edward J. Fillenwarth, Edward J. Fillenwarth, Jr., Fillenwarth & Fillenwarth, Indianapolis, for amicus curiae, Indiana Conference of Teamsters.
Lloyd L. DeWester, Jr., DeWester, Raftery, Andrews & Hall, Indianapolis, for amicus curiae, The Indiana State AFLCIO.
WHITE, Judge.
This is an original action, pursuant to the 'appeal' provisions of the Employment Security
Page 220
Act, 1 for a judicial review of a decision of the Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division affirming a referee's decision which held that employee-claimants, otherwise eligible, are eligible for benefits 2 during a period when their places of employment were closed by a so-called 'lockout.'The relevant evidentiary facts are not in dispute, although the validity of inferences drawn therefrom by the referee and by the Review Board is vigorously disputed. The board's 'Statement of Facts', in so far as it merely summarizes the evidentiary facts and states undisputed ultimate facts, seems to be a fair statement of the genesis of the eligibility question now before us. We have drawn a line through those sentences which the employer-appellants consider unfounded inferences.
'STATEMENT OF FACTS: The evidence is in agreement that the employers are engaged in pattern making; that the Pattern Makers League of North America, South Bend Association, is the authorized bargaining agent for the claimants herein; that there was a collective bargaining [147 Ind.App. 638] agreement in effect between the employers herein and said association from June 1, 1965, to May 1, 1968; that the employers were notified by letter in February, 1968, that the Pattern Makers Association of South Bend desired certain changes to take effect at the expiration of the existing agreement on April 30, 1968, at midnight; that the first meeting on negotiations was held April 8, 1968, and seven (7) meetings were held thereafter, including one at night on April 30, 1968.
'The record is in agreement that negotiations continued in good faith; that numerous issues were resolved; that during the meeting on April 30, 1968, counter contractual proposals were made by representatives of the employers and employees and rejected; that the employees, through their representatives, offered to continue working under the existing contract, or without a contract, for an indefinite 3 time while negotiations continued for a new one. At approximately 11:30 P.M., April 30, 1968, the employers rejected this proposal and advised the employees' representatives that the plants of the employers herein would not be open for business beginning May 1, 1968, giving the reason as: no contract, no work. (When the employees reported for work on May 1, 1968, they found notices posted which stated that the plants of the employers herein were closed.)
'At the time the employers decided to close their plants, there had been no work stoppage by employees, no overt actions by employees to curtail production by slowdown tactics, and no irregular attendance by employees during the weeks prior thereto. The record is conclusive in that the facts show that work was available, the employees had continued working regularly, and they were ready and available for work.
'The employers contended that their plants were closed because they had contracts with various companies and were concerned about meeting their commitments without having a definite contract in effect.
Page 221
Subsequent to ratification of new contracts, claimants returned to work for their respective employers on July 22 and 26, 1968.'[147 Ind.App. 639] The employers contend that claimants are ineligible for benefits by reason of section 1504 of the act 4 which states that '(a)n individual shall be ineligible * * * (if) his * * * unemployment is due to a stoppage of work which exists because of a labor dispute at the * * * premises at which he was last employed * * *.'
The General Assembly has directed us to follow the guidance of its public policy statement in section 101 of the Employment Security Act (Burns Ind.Stat.Ann. (1964 Repl.) § 52--1525) in 'the interpretation and application of this act.' As a part of that statement of public policy, the legislature has said that the act was passed 'to provide for the payment of benefits to persons unemployed through no fault of their own' and that such purpose is 'essential to public welfare'. 5 One may (if he wishes) question the wisdom[147 Ind.App. 640] of the philosophy which underlies this means of promoting the public welfare, but one can hardly question the fairness of seeking to avoid any interpretation of the act which would result in arbitrarily denying benefits to workers unemployed 'through no fault of their own'. The practical difficulty of interpreting the 'labor dispute' ineligibility provisions of section 1504 of the act (Burns Ind.Stat.Ann. (1964 Repl.) § 52--1539c) 6 in harmony with that purpose has plagued both the administrators of the
Page 222
act and the courts for years, perhaps since the 'labor dispute' clauses were first inserted into the predecessor act, the 'Unemployment Compensation Law' of 1936, by a 1937 amendment. 7 Application of the 'labor dispute' disqualification in 'lockout' cases seems to have been particularly troublesome and a workable rule which gives due regard to the 'no fault' concept of the public policy clause does not seem to have evolved until 1968 when we decided Bootz Manufacturing Co. v. Review Board (1968), Ind.App., 237 N.E.2d 597, 14 Ind.Dec. 469, Rehearing Den., 238 N.E.2d 472, 14 Ind.Dec. 703. We followed the Bootz rule in 1969 in International Steel Co. v. Review Board (1969), Ind.App., 252 N.E.2d 848, 19 Ind.Dec. 618, and now consider the rule well settled. Appellant-employers concede as much [147 Ind.App. 641] and correctly state the Bootz rule in the following quotation from their brief:'In the Bootz case, supra, this Court has held, and properly so, that good faith negotiations in and of themselves do not constitute a labor dispute, and that where negotiations are in a fluid state and no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Michigan Employment Sec. Commission, Docket Nos. 62991
...Security Division, 169 Ind.App. 478, 349 N.E.2d 258 (1976); City Pattern v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, 147 Ind.App. 636, 263 N.E.2d 218 (1970); International Steel Co. v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, 146 Ind.App. 137, 252 N.E.2d 848 (1969)......
-
Lee-Norse Co. v. Rutledge, LEE-NORSE
...otherwise, they may have a perfect right to refuse to yield to their employer's demands. City Pattern and Foundry Co. v. Review Board, 147 Ind.App. 636, 263 N.E.2d 218, 224 (1970). (Emphasis added). We are further guided by the wisdom and rationale of the Louisiana and Montana Supreme Court......
-
Gold Bond Bldg. Products Division Nat. Gypsum Co., Shoals Plant v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division, 2--874A192
...International Steel Co. v. Review Board (1969), 146 Ind.App. 137, 252 N.E.2d 848, and City Pattern & Foundry Co. v. Review Board (1970), 147 Ind.App. 636, 263 N.E.2d 218. The rule of Bootz is '. . . good faith negotiations between representatives of management and labor, where the facts sho......
-
Warner Press, Inc. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division, 2-1278A439
...the position of either labor or management in a labor dispute between an employer and its employees. City Pattern v. Rev. Bd. (1970), 147 Ind.App. 636, 263 N.E.2d 218; Blakely v. Rev. Bd. (1950), 120 Ind.App. 257, 90 N.E.2d 353. Thus, in applying the dual policy considerations involved in m......
-
Smith v. Michigan Employment Sec. Commission, Docket Nos. 62991
...Security Division, 169 Ind.App. 478, 349 N.E.2d 258 (1976); City Pattern v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, 147 Ind.App. 636, 263 N.E.2d 218 (1970); International Steel Co. v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division, 146 Ind.App. 137, 252 N.E.2d 848 (1969)......
-
Lee-Norse Co. v. Rutledge, LEE-NORSE
...otherwise, they may have a perfect right to refuse to yield to their employer's demands. City Pattern and Foundry Co. v. Review Board, 147 Ind.App. 636, 263 N.E.2d 218, 224 (1970). (Emphasis added). We are further guided by the wisdom and rationale of the Louisiana and Montana Supreme Court......
-
Gold Bond Bldg. Products Division Nat. Gypsum Co., Shoals Plant v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division, 2--874A192
...International Steel Co. v. Review Board (1969), 146 Ind.App. 137, 252 N.E.2d 848, and City Pattern & Foundry Co. v. Review Board (1970), 147 Ind.App. 636, 263 N.E.2d 218. The rule of Bootz is '. . . good faith negotiations between representatives of management and labor, where the facts sho......
-
Warner Press, Inc. v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division, 2-1278A439
...the position of either labor or management in a labor dispute between an employer and its employees. City Pattern v. Rev. Bd. (1970), 147 Ind.App. 636, 263 N.E.2d 218; Blakely v. Rev. Bd. (1950), 120 Ind.App. 257, 90 N.E.2d 353. Thus, in applying the dual policy considerations involved in m......