General Chemical Corp. v. Unemployment Ins. Com'n, Div. of Unemployment Ins., Dept. of Employment
| Decision Date | 16 November 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-240,94-240 |
| Citation | 906 P.2d 380 |
| Parties | GENERAL CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Appellant (Petitioner), v. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, DIVISION OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, Appellee (Respondent) and Patrick Senstock, et al., Appellees (Claimants). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Alan B. Minier of Rothgerber, Appel, Powers & Johnson, Cheyenne, for Appellant.
Joseph B. Meyer, Attorney General, Cheyenne, and Joe Scott, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Casper, for Appellee.
Michael D. Newman of Honaker, Hampton & Newman, Rock Springs, for Claimants.
Before GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and LEHMAN, JJ.
The Wyoming Department of Employment, Unemployment Insurance Commission awarded unemployment benefits to workers engaged in a strike. The Unemployment Insurance Commission concluded that the strike did not cause a disqualifying "work stoppage" since the employer's business activities were not substantially curtailed. We disagree with the conclusion that "work stoppage" refers to the employer's activities. We find that "work stoppage" refers to a worker's decision to withhold his or her services.
Appellant, General Chemical Corporation (General Chemical), presents the following issue for review:
A. Did the Unemployment Insurance Commission act arbitrarily, capriciously, or otherwise unlawfully within the meaning of W.S. § 16-3-114(c) in reversing its Examiner's decision, and ruling that the striking claimants engaged in a strike are not disqualified from receiving benefits under W.S. § 27-3-313(a)(i)?
Appellee, the Department of Employment, Unemployment Insurance Commission (Commission), states the issue as:
Whether the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Commission that Patrick Senstock and the other claimants should not be disqualified from unemployment benefits because their unemployment was not due to a work stoppage resulting from a labor dispute is arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or characterized by an abuse of discretion?
Claimants, Patrick Senstock, et. al. (striking workers), state the issue as:
1. Did the Unemployment Insurance Commission act arbitrary, capricious, abuse its discretion, or otherwise fail to act in accordance with law in awarding striking employees benefits in light of the Wyoming Employment Security Laws labor dispute disqualification provision contained in W.S. § 27-3-313(a)(i)?
Striking workers from General Chemical's trona mine and soda ash processing plant in Sweetwater County, Wyoming filed for and were paid unemployment benefits. General Chemical appealed the unemployment benefits award to the Department of Employment, Employment Resources Division. An appeals examiner reversed the prior decision and disqualified the striking workers from receiving unemployment benefits. Under the Commission's rules, the workers then filed an appeal with the Commission. The Commission reversed the appeals examiner's decision and awarded benefits based on the fact that the strike did not substantially curtail General Chemical's business operation. Concluding that "work stoppage" referred to the employer's business operation and not the workers' decision to withhold their labor, the Commission awarded benefits. General Chemical filed a Petition for Review of Administrative Action with the district court. The district court certified the case to this court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b).
When a case has been certified to this court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b), we apply the appellate standards which are applicable to the reviewing court of the first instance. Hepp v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers' Compensation Div., 881 P.2d 1076, 1077 (Wyo.1994). The substantial evidence standard will be applied when reviewing an administrative agency's findings of fact. Wyo.Stat. § 16-3-114(c)(ii)(E) (1990). The facts in this case are not in dispute and the only issue before us is a question of law. Thus, the Commission's decision will be reversed if it constitutes an abuse of discretion or if it is not in accordance with the law. Devous v. Wyoming State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 845 P.2d 408, 414 (Wyo.1993). The issue presented is whether the phrase, "work stoppage," as that phrase is used in Wyo.Stat. § 27-3-313(a)(i) (Cum.Supp.1995), refers to a worker's decision to stop working as a result of a labor dispute. Rules of statutory construction require us to look to the legislative intent, as manifested in the plain language of the statute, when determining the meaning of a statute. Parker Land and Cattle Co. v. Wyoming Game and Fish Com'n, 845 P.2d 1040, 1042 (Wyo.1993).
Wyo.Stat. § 27-3-313(a)(i) provides, in pertinent part:
(a) For any week with respect to which the following situations occur or payments have been or will be received, an individual shall be disqualified from benefit entitlement if:
(i) Total or part total unemployment for any week is due to work stoppage resulting from a labor dispute on the employment premises at which he was last employed.
The plain meaning of this statute reveals that an individual is not entitled to unemployment benefits if his unemployment is due to work stoppage resulting from a labor dispute. The limiting phrase, "on the employment premises," extends to the last antecedent, "a labor dispute." Thus, the "labor dispute" must occur on the "employment premises" in order to trigger the exclusion. However, the same is not true of the more distant antecedent, "work stoppage." In other words, the "work stoppage" referred to in Wyo.Stat. § 27-3-313(a)(i) is not the stoppage of work on the employer's premises. Rather, for reasons expressed below, we conclude that the phrase, "work stoppage," refers to a striking worker's decision to withhold his or her labor. Board of Review v. Mid-Continent Petroleum Corp., 193 Okla 36, 141 P.2d 69, 75-76 (1943), Davison, J., specially concurring.
We agree with the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Management Council of Wyoming Legislature v. Geringer
...v. Wyoming State Bd. of Equalization, 915 P.2d 1184, 1189 (Wyo.1996); General Chemical Corp. v. Unemployment Ins. Com'n, Div. of Unemployment Ins., Dept. of Employment, 906 P.2d 380, 381 (Wyo.1995); Casper Oil Co. v. Evenson, 888 P.2d 221, 225 (Wyo.1995). There is a degree of irony to be fo......
-
In re Sierra Trading Post, Inc.
...by our usual standards for reviewing the decision of an administrative agency. General Chemical Corp. v. Unemployment Ins. Com'n, Div. of Unemployment Ins., Dept. of Employment, 906 P.2d 380, 381 (Wyo.1995); Safety Medical Services, Inc. v. Employment Sec. Com'n of Wyoming, 724 P.2d 468, 47......
-
VanLente v. University of Wyoming Research Corp., 98-73
...remedy when there is no contract. Wyoming is an employment at-will state. General Chemical Corp. v. Unemployment Ins. Com'n, Div. of Unemployment Ins., Dept. of Employment, 906 P.2d 380, 382 (Wyo.1995); Wilder v. Cody Country Chamber of Commerce, 868 P.2d 211, 217 (Wyo.1994), and cases ther......
-
WYOMING DEPT. OF EMPLOYMENT v. Porter
...was liable for the repayment of unemployment insurance benefits based on this Court's decision in General Chemical Corporation v. Unemployment Insurance Commission, 906 P.2d 380 (Wyo.1995). We affirm the decision of the district ISSUES The Commission sets forth a single issue for review: Wh......