Hansen v. Texas Employment Com'n
| Decision Date | 29 January 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 15657,15657 |
| Citation | 332 S.W.2d 372 |
| Parties | Frances M. HANSEN et al., Appellants, v. TEXAS EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Mullinax, Wells & Morris, Charles J. Morris and Albert Levy, Dallas, for appellants.
Will Wilson, Atty. Gen., and C. K. Richards, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
This is a companion case to Huey v. Texas Employment Commission, 332 S.W.2d 366.
Frances M. Hansen and other appellants are employees of Dallas Pant Manufacturing Company of Dallas, Texas, Waxahachie Garment Company of Waxahachie, Texas, Greenville Pant Manufacturing Company of Greenville, Texas, McKinney Pant Manufacturing Company of McKinney, Texas, and The Corsicana Company of Corsicana, Texas. These companies together with Haggar Company are affiliated companies.
Each of the companies is a Texas Corporation. It is stipulated that all of the companies manufacture men's clothing except Haggar Company, which is engaged in the sale of men's clothing. The ownership, control and management of the companies are substantially the same. Labor relations for all of them are handled from a common office in Dallas, Texas. However, the Corsicana Company, unlike the other companies, has not entered into a bargaining contract with any labor union of other organization.
It is further stipulated as a fact that in each of the companies during a two weeks' period in the summer of 1956 appellants performed no work and received no pay for such period because of the closing of each company's plant. The closing was in the exercise of an option under the terms of a collective bargaining contract, except in the case of The Corsicana Company.
Texas Employment Commission allowed unemployment compensation to employees of The Corsicana Company who were not eligible for vacation pay during the closing period. But refused unemployment compensation to employees of the other companies who were not eligible for vacation pay. The grounds of the refusal were that said employees in the collective bargaining contract negotiated for them by their labor union had agreed to a two weeks' closing period without pay. In other words it was held that each of the said employees 'had left his last work voluntarily, without good cause connected with his work.' Art. 5221b-3(a) Vernon's Ann.Civ.St.
Appellants are members of Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. They have appealed from a District Court judgment affirming the order of Texas Employment Commission denying them unemployment compensation during the period the plants were closed.
Since the bargaining contract provisions are not identically the same in the Huey case and this case we deem it appropriate to quote from the contract now before us 'Article IV
'vacation periods shall be determined by the Company. As a rule such periods shall be between the latter part of June and the first day of September of each year. It shall also be the Company's sole option to determine the manner in which vacations may be given, i. e., whether to close down the entire factory, to give one or more employees their vacation period at one time or to close down one or more units at a time. * * * (Emphasis ours).
'4. Vacation pay shall be figured as follows:
'b. 4% of employees pay for the current twelve months period to be paid to all employees having been continuously employed for four years or more.'
We quote also pertinent parts of the agreed stipulation of facts:
'10.
'Beginning with the year 1947 in accordance with the practice of the defendant employer companies in exercise of the option under Article IV of the Contracts hereinbefore referred to and prior contracts entered into between the employer companies and the union, up to and including the year 1956, the sewing rooms of the defendant employers plants at their various locations have been closed for a two weeks' period, during each of which periods no production work was done or was available to any production employees in the sewing rooms of each of said plants of defendant employer companies.
'11.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Texas Employment Commission v. Hansen
...trial court held that they were disqualified. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed that decision and rendered judgment for the claimants. 332 S.W.2d 372. We here affirm the judgment of the Court of Civil In many respects, the facts here are like those in the Huey case. The employer here also......