Kalamazoo Tank & Silo Co. v. Mich. Unemployment Comp. Comm'n
Decision Date | 28 February 1949 |
Docket Number | No. 28.,28. |
Citation | 36 N.W.2d 226,324 Mich. 101 |
Parties | KALAMAZOO TANK & SILO CO. v. MICHIGAN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal in Nature of Certiorari from Circuit Court, Ninth Circuit; George V. Weimer, Judge.
Certiorari proceeding by Kalamazoo Tank & Silo Company, a Michigan corporation, employer, against the Michigan Unemployment Compensation Commission and the Appeal Board of the Michigan Unemployment Compensation Commission, and Eli W. Adams and others, claimants, to review a decision of the Appeal Board sustaining the referee's decision awarding unemployment compensation to the claimants. From an order affirming the decision of the Appeal Board, the employer appeals.
Order affirmed.
Before the Entire Bench.
Paulson & Laing, of Kalamazoo, for plaintiff and appellant Kalamazoo Tank & Silo Co.
Stephen J. Roth, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol. Gen., of Lansing, and Laurence A. Price and Edward Coughlin, Asst. Attys, Gen., for appellee.
Rothe & Marston, of Detroit, for individual defendants and appellees.
The issue presented on this appeal as stated by appellant is:
‘Were the union employee-claimants of appellant corporation disqualified from benefits under the Michigan unemployment compensation act [Pub.Acts 1936, Ex.Sess., No. 1], section 29(a), between November 21, 1945, and January 25 (sic 23), 1946, because they did not cross the picket line at the plant of appellant corporation, which line was composed of employees of another corporation and who were members of another union?’
References herein to section 29 of the statute are to that section of Act No. 246, Pub.Acts 1943. In part and so far as pertinent to decision herein, the statute reads:
‘An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: (a) For the duration of his unemployment in all cases where the individual has either: (1) left his work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the employer * * *.’
Unless otherwise indicated we herein refer to the individual defendants, of whom there are said to be 53, as claimants or employes of plaintiff company. The material facts and the issue presented appear in the following decision of the referee, who affirmed the commission's holding that the claimants were not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation between November 21, 1945, and January 23, 1946. We quote the referee's decision in part:
‘At the above hearing (before the referee) it was testified that a labor dispute began on November 19, 1945, at the Riverside Foundry & Galvanizing Company, which plant is adjacent to the plant of the Kalamazoo Tank and Silo Company. On November 20, 1945, the employees of the Kalamazoo Tank and Silo Company still continued working, but that afternoon the employees of the Riverside Foundry & Galvanizing Company placed a picket line around both plants. On November 21, 1945, the employees of the Kalamazoo Tank & Silo Company came to work as usual and found a picket line of A. F. of L. workers from the Riverside Foundry & Galvanizing Company blocking the entrances to the Kalamazoo Tank & Silo Company plant. All but eight or ten of the seventy-five or eighty employees of the Kalamazoo Tank and Silo Company refrained from crossing the picket line on November 21.
‘The employees of the Kalamazoo Tank and Silo Company are members of Local 3396 USW-CIO and it was testified that they were told by the pickets who were around the plant and who were members of A. F. of L. that they would not be allowed through the picket line. Several conferences were held between the employer and a committee from the CIO employees of the Kalamazoo Tank and Silo Company, at which conferences the employer informed the men that there was work for them and that they could come to work if they wanted to. However, Peter G. Klok, President of Local 3396 USW-CIO, who testified for the claimants, stated that he attempted to cross the picket line on two occasions and talked to the captain fo the picket line asking for permission to cross; that he was told emphatically ‘no’ on both occasions.
‘* * * At or about the same time (January 25, 1946), the labor dispute at Riverside Foundry & Galvanizing Company terminated and the picket line was withdrawn from the plant of the Kalamazoo Tank and Silo Company and all of the claimants returned to work on January 28, 1946.
‘The file contains several statements from the employer to the effect that there is no dispute whatsoever between the Kalamazoo Tank and Silo Company and their employees relative to pay, hours of employment or any other matter, and it was admitted by representatives of the employer and of the claimants that the results of the labor dispute at the Reverside Foundry & Galvanizing Company had no effect upon the wages, hours of employment or working conditions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Empire Iron Min. Partnership v. Orhanen
...burden of economic insecurity on those who become unemployed through no fault of their own. Kalamazoo Tank & Silo Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Comm., 324 Mich. 101, 107, 36 N.W.2d 226 (1949). The act Economic insecurity due to unemployment is a serious menace to the health, morals, and ......
-
Mich., Dep't of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs, Unemployment Ins. Agency v. Green (In re Green)
...own.” Empire Iron Mining P'ship v. Orhanen, 455 Mich. 410, 565 N.W.2d 844, 848 (1997) (citing Kalamazoo Tank & Silo Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Comm'n, 324 Mich. 101, 36 N.W.2d 226 (1949) ). To that end, Michigan courts have held that provisions of the MES Act are to be liberally const......
-
Keith v. Chrysler Corp.
...(1962); Williams v. Florida Industrial Commission, 135 So.2d 435 (Fla.App., 1961).9 Cf. Kalamazoo Tank & Silo Co. v. Michigan Unemployment Compensation Commission, 324 Mich. 101, 36 N.W.2d 226 (1949); Dynamic Manufacturers, Inc. v. Michigan Employment Security Commission, 369 Mich. 556, 120......
-
Deere Mfg. Co. v. Iowa Employment Sec. Commission
...329, 131 N.E.2d 64; Steamship Trade Ass'n of Baltimore v. Davis, 190 Md. 215, 57 A.2d 818; Kalamazoo Tank & Silo Co. v. Michigan Unemployment Compensation Commission, 324 Mich. 101, 36 N.W.2d 226. In all except the Michigan case there is no requirement in the statutes involved requiring tha......