Jenks v. Wisconsin Dept. of Industry, Labor and Human Relations
| Decision Date | 25 May 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-1540,81-1540 |
| Citation | 107 Wis.2d 714,321 N.W.2d 347 |
| Parties | Orval V. JENKS, Jr., individually and as President of Local 1509 of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and Blacksmiths, and its members; Thomas B. Widor, individually and as President of Local 92 of The International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, and its members; Ronald Blawat, individually and as President of Local 140 of The International Die Sinker Conference and Milwaukee Die Sinkers, and its members; Don Pradarelli, individually and as President of Local 85 of The Office and Professional Employees International Union, and its members; and Robert Allen Hagen, individually and as Chairman of Local 125 of The International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, and its members, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, LABOR AND HUMAN RELATIONS; the Labor and Industry Review Commission of the State of Wisconsin, and Ladish Company, a corporation, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
Stephen J. Hajduch and John A. Udovc, Milwaukee, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Quarles & Brady by Elwin J. Zarwell and Mary Pat Koesterer, Milwaukee, for defendant-respondent Ladish Co.
Floyd F. Tefft, Labor and Industry Review Commission, Madison, for defendants-respondents Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations and The Labor and Industry Review Commission of the State of Wisconsin.
Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., and David C. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Before DECKER, C. J., MOSER, P. J., and RANDA, J.
This is an appeal from an order which affirmed a decision of The Labor and Industry Review Commission of the State of Wisconsin (LIRC) denying unemployment compensation benefits to the officers and members of five nonstriking unions (the nonstriking workers) that had labor contracts with Ladish Company (Ladish). The trial court dismissed the complaint of the nonstriking workers on the ground that there was substantial evidence in the record to support LIRC's determination that the nonstriking workers were not entitled to unemployment compensation under sec. 108.04(10), Stats. 1 The trial court further determined that sec. 108.04(10) was constitutional. We affirm.
On or about April 11, 1979, the machinists' union commenced a legal strike at the Ladish plant in Cudahy. Ladish immediately notified members of four of the nonstriking unions that they would be laid off because the machinists were so integrated into the overall operation of the plant that the manufacturing process could not be carried on. The members of The International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers were not laid off, but refused to cross the machinists' picket line. The strike lasted approximately five months.
The nonstriking workers, including members of the firemen and oilers' union, applied for and were denied unemployment compensation. A Wisconsin Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations (DILHR) deputy initially determined that each claimant "left or lost his/her employment with Ladish because of a strike or other bonafide [sic] labor dispute in active progress in the establishment in which he/she is or was employed." The deputy concluded that under sec. 108.04(10), Stats., each claimant was ineligible for benefits while the strike was in active progress.
The nonstriking workers appealed the denial of benefits to a DILHR appeal tribunal on a stipulated statement of facts which provided in part:
The same manufacturing facilities and essentially the same processes, relationships, operations and other facts found and considered in the determination of the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin in Cook v. Industrial Comm., 31 Wis.2d 232; 142 N.W.2d 827 (1966) are the subject of this proceeding and may be considered to be present and to exist for the purpose of this proceeding except only as expressly modified by this stipulation.
On this appeal, the workers challenged both the deputy's findings and the constitutionality of sec. 108.04(10), Stats.
The appeal tribunal affirmed the deputy's initial determination. It found that it had no jurisdiction to entertain constitutional challenges to statutes. It rejected the argument that the workers were not striking employees and should not be made to suffer because of a labor dispute outside their respective union contract. The tribunal noted, citing Cook v. Industrial Commission, 2 that it has been consistently held that under sec. 108.04(10), Stats., nonstriking employees who lose their employment due to a strike by another union in the establishment in which they are employed are ineligible for benefits even though they do not support the strike. The tribunal also rejected the contention that the phrase in sec. 108.04(10), "establishment in which they are employed" includes only the contract under which they are employed and excludes other union contracts. The tribunal reasoned that the statutory language did not refer to union contracts but to the place of employment, that is, Ladish's Cudahy plant.
The nonstriking workers appealed the appeal tribunal's decision to LIRC. In a decision dated August 4, 1980, the majority determined that the tribunal's findings of fact and conclusions of law were supported by the record and that the workers were ineligible for benefits for any week in which the strike or bona fide labor dispute was in active progress in the establishment in which the worker is or was employed. One commissioner dissented, concluding that Ladish locked out the nonstriking union employees as a pressure tactic, and that the members of the firemen and oilers' union were simply exercising an unquestioned right to refuse to cross a picket line.
The workers sought review of LIRC's denial of benefits in Milwaukee county circuit court. In their complaint against DILHR, LIRC, Ladish and the attorney general, 3 the workers alleged two causes of action: (1) that they were locked out by Ladish and that sec. 108.04(10), Stats., was unconstitutional, and (2) that Ladish breached the workers' labor agreements by locking out the workers.
Pursuant to motions by Ladish, the circuit court, in a memorandum decision rendered on December 8, 1980, and reduced to an order on December 16, 1980, struck the "lockout" language of the complaint and dismissed the cause of action for breach of labor contract. The circuit court pointed out that the stipulation before the appeal tribunal and the LIRC included "all facts founded [sic] and considered in Cook" and is binding on the parties. The circuit court determined that the LIRC could find that no lockout occurred based on that stipulation alone. The circuit court dismissed the breach of labor contract action without prejudice on the basis that it was a collateral attack on an appeal from an administrative agency decision. 4 The court found that the breach of labor contract action could be maintained as a separate suit but could not be part of an appeal from an administrative ruling.
The circuit court heard the matter on July 13, 1981. In a bench decision, the circuit court ruled that there was substantial evidence to support LIRC's denial of benefits. The court pointed out that the stipulation alone, would justify this conclusion. The circuit court further determined that the nonstriking workers failed to meet the heavy burden of showing that sec. 108.04(10), Stats., is unconstitutional and that there is a rational basis for the classification established. In an order signed and entered on July 24, 1979, the circuit court affirmed the decision of the LIRC and dismissed the complaint on the merits.
This appeal raises two issues: (1) whether LIRC erred when it found that the nonstriking workers left or lost their employment because of a strike or bona fide labor
dispute in active progress in the establishment in which they were employed and denied benefits pursuant to sec. 108.04(10), Stats., and (2) whether the denial of unemployment compensation benefits to nonstriking[107 Wis.2d 720] employees violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws.
An aggrieved party may obtain judicial review of LIRC determinations, 5 but the reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the LIRC as to the weight or credibility on any finding of fact. 6 Findings of fact by an administrative tribunal such as LIRC are conclusive if supported by substantial credible evidence. 7 Substantial evidence is not a preponderance of evidence; the test is whether reasonable minds could arrive at the same conclusion as reached by LIRC. 8 An LIRC determination will not be overturned simply because it is against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence. 9
A reviewing court is not bound by LIRC's determinations on questions of law, but will sustain LIRC's view if reasonable. 10 The construction and interpretation of a statute adopted by an agency assigned the duty of applying the law is entitled to great weight. 11
The nonstriking workers argue initially that their layoff by Ladish constituted a lockout in violation of their collective bargaining agreements and that sec. 108.04(10), Stats., does not apply to such situations. This contention is without merit. Both LIRC and the trial court concluded that the stipulation between the parties foreclosed any finding of a lockout. We agree.
The stipulation provided in pertinent part that "[t]he same manufacturing facilities ... processes, relationships, operations and other facts found and considered in ... Cook ... are the subject of this proceeding and may be considered to be present and to exist for the purpose of this proceeding...." In Cook, 12 the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that there was sufficient evidence to provide a credible basis for the appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brauneis v. State
... ... STATE of Wisconsin, Labor and Industry Review Commission, ... The Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations determined that Petitioners-Respondents ... 2d 437, 380 N.W.2d 387 (Ct. App. 1985) ; Jenks v. DILHR, 107 Wis. 2d 714, 321 N.W.2d 347 (Ct ... ...
-
Anchor Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Equal Opportunities Com'n
... ... No. 82-1508 ... Court of Appeals of Wisconsin ... Submitted on Briefs Sept. 9, 1983 ... See Jenks v. DILHR, 107 Wis.2d 714, 720, 321 N.W.2d 347, ... ...
-
Milwaukee County v. Milwaukee Dist. Council 48-American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO
... ... Council 48, AFSCME, AFL-CIO; and Wisconsin Employment ... Relations Commission, ... 2d 1056, 1072, 236 N.W.2d 240, 246 (1975); Jenks v. DILHR, 107 Wis.2d 714, 723, 321 N.W.2d 347, ... The public policy of the state as to labor disputes arising in municipal employment is to ... ...
-
Federated Rural Elec. Ins. Co. v. Kessler
... ... Court of Appeals of Wisconsin ... Sept. 10, 1985 ... Circuit ... Jenks v. DILHR, 107 Wis.2d 714, 720, 321 N.W.2d 347, ... In State Department of Employment Relations v. WERC, 122 Wis.2d 132, 138-43, 361 N.W.2d 660, ... ...