Department of Indus. Relations v. Nix

• Citation: 381 So.2d 651
• Parties: DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Westala Coal Company v. Louis NIX, Norman Murray. Civ. 2051.
• Decision Date: 19 March 1980
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

Page 651

381 So.2d 651

DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, Westala Coal Company v. Louis NIX, Norman Murray.

Civ. 2051.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 19, 1980.

George Cocoris, Gen. Counsel of Dept. of Indus. Relations, Craig A. Donley, Asst. Gen. Counsel of Dept. of Indus. Relations, Montgomery, Stephen A. Rowe of Lange, Simpson, Robinson & Somerville, Birmingham, for appellants.

William E. Mitch and Earl V. Brown, Jr., of Cooper, Mitch & Crawford, Birmingham, for appellees.

BRADLEY, Judge.

The appellants, the Department of Industrial Relations and Westala Coal Company (hereinafter referred to as "Industrial Relations" or "Westala") appeal from a Walker County Circuit Court judgment in favor of appellees, Louis Nix and Norman Murray. We affirm.

Westala Coal Company, before December 5, 1977, had actively engaged in strip mining bituminous coal at Black Pond in Winston County, Alabama.

A collective bargaining agreement had existed prior to this time between Westala and the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) which governed the wages, working conditions and hours of its rank and file employees. This agreement expired at midnight on December 5, 1977. Louis Nix and Norman Murray were UMWA members employed by Westala.

Collective bargaining procedures are usually conducted between the Bituminous Coal Operators Association (BCOA) and UMWA, which negotiations began December 5, 1977 and ended in agreement on March 28, 1978.

When the national coal strike commenced on December 5, 1977, Westala ceased its operations. However, because Westala was not a member of BCOA, it preferred to negotiate independently with the UMWA after March 28, 1978 concerning a contractual arrangement with its company.

Several meetings took place with the union; however, having reached an impasse, negotiations ended May 26, 1978. There have been no further meetings, nor any attempts to meet, between the two parties.

Shortly after this, Westala, in June 1978, retained only one foreman and one secretary. The secretary was transferred to another of Westala's companies in October 1978, and the foreman requested termination around the same period. Westala's vice president testified that a week prior to trial in September 1979, some of Westala's machinery was sold due to financial reasons. He further testified that the company had ordered no supplies, nor had it mined any coal. The company had, in effect, ceased functioning as a business, though the company still owns the mine properties.

The claimants, Nix and Murray, signed up for unemployment compensation but were denied benefits. An appeal was thereafter made to an appeals referee which also denied benefits. This decision was upheld on further appeal by the board of appeals. At a trial de novo, the circuit court reversed the earlier decisions and awarded the claimants unemployment compensation on August 6, 1979. An appeal was then made to this court.

There are two issues presented before this court on appeal. The first issue is whether or not the labor dispute was in active progress thereby disqualifying the claimants from unemployment compensation.

The Alabama unemployment compensation statute is stated in § 25-4-78 of the 1975 Code of Alabama.

An individual shall be disqualified for total or partial unemployment:

(1) Labor dispute in place of employment. For any week in which his total or partial unemployment is directly due to a labor dispute still in active progress in the establishment in which he is or was last employed. For the purposes of this section only, the term "labor dispute" includes any controversy concerning terms, tenure or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee. This definition shall not relate to a dispute between an individual worker and his employer. (Emphasis added.)

Appellants claim that even though negotiations have ceased, the claimants should still be disqualified as the labor dispute is still in active progress.

In the present case the following stipulation was put into the record concerning the events of the last bargaining session on May 26, 1978:

There occurred a bargaining session of some duration probably of over an hour. At the conclusion of which the differences between the parties had not been resolved and the meeting was terminated with the understanding between the parties that if there were any change in the position the parties would be in touch with each other and there has been no subsequent contact between the parties in regard to the resumption of negotiations.

The claimants recognize that they are not entitled to any compensation from December 5, 1977 to May 26, 1978, as negotiations were ensuing. However, claimants do contend that as negotiations had come to an impasse, they were out of work when there was no longer a labor dispute going on as defined in the statute.

Charles L. Fuller, president of district 20 of UMWA, wrote a letter to the union members in August 1978 stating:

Gentlemen: The labor...