Gorecki v. State, 6882

• Decision Date: 31 March 1975
• Docket Number: No. 6882,6882
• Citation: 335 A.2d 647,115 N.H. 120
• Parties: Kaz GORECKI v. STATE of New Hampshire et al.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 647

335 A.2d 647

115 N.H. 120

Kaz GORECKI v. STATE of New Hampshire et al.

No. 6882.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

March 31, 1975.

Bell & Kennedy and Arnold R. Falk, Keene, for plaintiffs.

Edward F. Smith, Andre J. Barbeau and Joseph Stewart, Concord, for defendants N. H. Dept. of Employment Security and White Metal Rolling & Stamping Corp.

LAMPRON, Justice.

Appeal by the New Hampshire Department of Employment Security from a de novo determination by the Superior Court (Johnson, J.) that the plaintiff was not disqualified for benefits under RSA 282:4, subd. F (Supp.1973) because the work stoppage for the four weeks ending November 27 through December 8, 1971 was due solely to a lockout. RSA 282:4, subd. F(3). This was contrary to a decision by the department's appeal tribunal that plaintiff's unemployment was due to an existing labor dispute and not to a lockout. 'By order of the Court, without objection, this finding shall apply to all cases of other employees of White Metal; and, hence, in all such cases, it is found that a lockout occurred.' The main issue on this appeal is whether the trial court properly found and ruled that plaintiff's unemployment was due solely to a lockout.

White Metal Rolling and Stamping Corp., operated a plant at North Walpole manufacturing aluminum extension ladders and stepladders mostly sold to Sears, Roebuck and Company. It had a labor-management agreement with the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America for the period October 1, 1968, to midnight September 30, 1971. This contract was to continue from year to year unless either party gave a written notice of its desire to amend or terminate. Plaintiff, a member of the union, had been employed by the company for a number of years.

On July 26, 1971, the union notified the company of its desire to modify the existing agreement. Accordingly on and after August 24, 1971, the parties entered into negotiations. After September 30, 1971, when their agreement expired, the employees, with the consent of the company, continued to work under its terms on a day to day basis. On November 11, 1971, the company gave the union a written notice that the 'contract was to terminate five days from today'. Negotiations were held on November 18 and 19 and a company proposal finalized at 1:00 a.m. on the 19th was submitted to the union membership at 8:00 a.m. that same day and rejected. The union members with the assent of the plant manager returned to work at 9:30 a.m. that same morning. In that afternoon the company posted a notice on the plant bulletin board that 35 employees, including the plaintiff, were laid off effective the next day, Saturday, November 20, 1971. Negotiations continued, however, and an agreement was reached on December 10, signed on December 17, and the employees went back to work December 20, 1971.

RSA 282:4 (Supp.1973) reads in part as follows: 'An individual shall be disqualified for benefits . . . F. For any week with respect to which the commission finds that his total or partial unemployment is due to a stoppage of work which exists because of a labor dispute at the factory . . . provided that this subsection will not apply if it is shown to the satisfaction of the commissioner that . . . (3) The stoppage of work was due solely to a lockout. . . .'

A 'labor dispute' is not defined in the statute. It is generally held to encompass 'a situation involving any controversy concerning wages, hours, working conditions, or broadly speaking 'any controversy arising out of the respective interests of employer and employee . . .." Furber v. Administrator Unemployment Comp. Act, 164 Conn. 446, 455, 324 A.2d 254, 259 (1973); Amory Worsted Mills v. Riley, 96 N.H. 162, 164, 71 A.2d 788, 790 (1950). It is clear that a labor dispute existed during the four weeks plaintiff was unemployed and for which he is seeking compensation. Such unemployment if caused by the labor dispute is generally considered voluntary and not within the purpose of an unemployment compensation act intended to provide some measure of relief against involuntary unemployment. Armstrong v. Adams, 113 N.H. 367, 369, 308 A.2d 842, 843 (1973). The relative merits of the labor dispute are immaterial. Almada v. Administrator Unemployment Comp., 137 Conn. 380, 386, 77 A.2d 765, 769 (1951). If the dispute caused the unemployment, the employee is disqualified from receiving benefits. Febbi v Board of Review, Div. of Employ. Sec., 35 N.J. 601, 608, 174...