Gordon v. Rutledge

• Decision Date: 11 December 1985
• Docket Number: No. 16259,16259
• Citation: 337 S.E.2d 920,175 W.Va. 683
• Parties: Leslie H. GORDON, et al. v. Phyllis J. RUTLEDGE, Clerk etc., and George S. BELCHER, et al. v. Phyllis J. RUTLEDGE, Clerk, etc., et al.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

Page 920

337 S.E.2d 920

175 W.Va. 683

Leslie H. GORDON, et al. v. Phyllis J. RUTLEDGE, Clerk etc., and George S. BELCHER, et al. v. Phyllis J. RUTLEDGE, Clerk, etc., et al.

No. 16259.

Supreme Court of Appeals of

West Virginia.

Dec. 11, 1985.

Syllabus by the Court

" 'Unemployment compensation statutes, being remedial in nature, should be liberally construed to achieve the benign purposes intended to the full extent thereof.' Davis v. Hix, 140 W.Va. 398, 84 S.E.2d 404 (1954), Syllabus Point 6." Syllabus Point 1, Lee-Norse Co. v. Rutledge, 170 W.Va. 162, 291 S.E.2d 477 (1982).

James B. McIntyre, Charleston, for appellants.

P. Thomas Krieger, Huntington, for appellee.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal, by way of certiorari, ¹ is taken from a final order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, entered January 13, 1984, which denied the claims of the petitioners, Leslie H. Gordon, George S. Belcher and other similarly-situated employees of Ensign Electric Division, Harvey Hubbell, Inc. (hereinafter Ensign), for unemployment compensation benefits. The petitioners contend that the circuit court erred in reversing decisions of the Board of Review of the West Virginia Department of Employment Security which held that the petitioners were not disqualified from receiving benefits under the provisions of the Unemployment Compensation Law, W.Va.Code § 21A-1-1 et seq. (1985 Replacement Vol.). We agree, and we reverse the judgment of the circuit court.

This is the second time this case has been before this Court. In Belt v. Cole, 172 W.Va. 383, 305 S.E.2d 340 (1983), we held that the petitioners were not ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits merely because they were involved in a labor dispute. We remanded the case, however, for a determination of whether the petitioners were subject to W.Va.Code § 21A-6-3(4), which provides that an individual shall be disqualified from receiving benefits

[f]or a week in which his total or partial unemployment is due to a stoppage of work which exists because of a labor dispute at the factory, establishment or other premises at which he was last employed, unless the commissioner is satisfied that he was not (one) participating, financing, or directly interested in such dispute, and (two) did not belong to a grade or class of workers who were participating, financing, or directly interested in the labor dispute which resulted in the stoppage of work. No disqualification under this subdivision shall be imposed if the employees are required to accept wages, hours or conditions of employment substantially less favorable than those prevailing for similar work in the locality, or if employees are denied the right of collective bargaining under generally prevailing conditions, or if an employer shuts down his plant or operation or dismisses his employees in order to force a wage reduction, changes in hours or working conditions.

The petitioners asserted that they were not disqualified under this section because the wages offered by Ensign were substantially less favorable than the prevailing wage for similar work in the locality.

The petitioners, all members of Local 5925 of the United Steelworkers of America, were employed by Ensign under a collective bargaining agreement which expired on September 30, 1978. Despite efforts at negotiating a new agreement, the union and Ensign were unable to come to terms, and on October 1, 1978, the petitioners went on strike.

The petitioners applied to the Department of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits, and, for reasons not germane to this appeal, the claims were divided into two groups. The claims were referred to Appeal Tribunals as labor disputes, and evidentiary hearings were conducted on October 25, 1978 and December 13, 1978.

At the hearings, the petitioners attempted to establish the prevailing wage by offering examples of the wages paid to certain employees by three other employers, ACF Industries, Connor Steel Co. and International Nickel Co., under collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the union. The petitioners' evidence showed that these employers paid employees classified as "welders" and "laborers" a standard hourly wage substantially higher than that offered by Ensign to similarly classified employees. ² The petitioners also asserted that each of these companies offered incentive pay to its employees which Ensign did not, thus creating an even...