Kennecott Copper Corp. Employees v. Department of Employment Sec. of Indus. Comn., 9607

• Court: Supreme Court of Utah
• Citation: 372 P.2d 987,13 Utah 2d 262
• Docket Number: No. 9607,9607
• Parties: d 262 KENNECOTT COPPER CORPORATION EMPLOYEES who were members of or represented by, Office Employees International Union, Local 286; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Local 844; International Association of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 485, Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY OF The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Utah and The Board of Review, Defendants.
• Decision Date: 19 June 1962

Page 987

372 P.2d 987

13 Utah 2d 262

KENNECOTT COPPER CORPORATION EMPLOYEES who were members of

or represented by, Office Employees International Union, Local 286; Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Local 844; International Association of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 485, Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY OF The INDUSTRIAL

COMMISSION of Utah and The Board of Review,

Defendants.

No. 9607.

Supreme Court of Utah.

June 19, 1962.

Patterson, Foley & Phillips, Ogden, for plaintiffs.

A. Pratt Kesler, Atty. Gen., Fred Dremann, Salt Lake City, for respondents.

CROCKETT, Justice.

Plaintiffs, employees of Kennecott Copper Corporation, seek reversal of an order of the Industrial Commission denying them unemployment compensation on the basis of Sec. 35-4-5, U.C.A.1953, which provides:

'An individual shall be ineligible for benefits * * * (d) For any week in which it is found by the commission that his unemployment is due to a stoppage of work which exists because of a strike involving his grade, class, or group of workers at the factory or establishment at which he is or was last employed.'

Kennecott conducts a large mining, (Bingham) smelting and refining (Garfield) operation in Salt Lake County in which it employs about 6,000 employees who belong to a total of 19 unions. The contracts with the unions were to expire on August 1, 1961. Negoltiations were being carried on before and continued after that date, resulting in agreements with all of the unions except one: Local No. 1081 of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) which had 188 workers. An impass existed with it and on August 17 about 6 a. m. that union commenced a strike and placed picket lines at all entrances to the company's properties. It is undisputed that practically all of the 6,000 employees did not enter the company properties to work the shift commencing at seven that morning; and did not work until the electricians' strike was settled on September 8.

Plaintiffs applied for unemployment compensation covering that period, which was refused by the Unemployment Division. After a hearing, this determination was affirmed by the Appeals Referee; and by the Board of Review of the Industrial Commission.

Plaintiffs' contention is that their respective unions had agreed upon new work contracts; that they were thus not on strike against company; that they were willing to work but there was no work available for them because operations could not continue without the services of the electricians. On the other hand, the company's position is that it intended to maintain operations even without the electrical workers by expedients available under its open shop contract: by using 26 supervisory electrician personnel; by sending out electrical equipment for repair; and by hiring replacements. It insists that all of its conduct was in accord with its plan to keep the plant in operation and that it did not at any time prior to the strike do anything or make any announcement to indicate that in the event of a strike the plant would be closed.

Upon these opposing claims and conflicting evidence in support thereof the Appeals Referee rejected the plaintiffs' contention, and, among others, made these findings:

'The facts do not show that production operations were stopped by lack of services of the regular electrical workers';

but that,

'the work stoppage was due to the plaintiffs and their co-workers staying away from their jobs';

that,

'when the strike started at 6 a. m. August 17 the company had plans to continue normal operations at the mine, work schedules were posted, electric power was available, foremen had been instructed to put all men to work who reported * * * men who reported to work were given their regular work assignments and there was work for those who chose to work'

and that,

'operations came to a halt only when members of these appellant groups did not report as scheduled and accept theiregular assignments to man the equipment.'

We are obliged to analyze this determination in accordance with the established rules of review: that the evidence is to be looked at in the light most favorable to the findings; and in so doing, if there is evidence of any substance whatever which can reasonably be regarded as supporting the determination made, it must be affirmed; ¹ and conversely, a reversal and the compelling of such an award could be justified only if there was no substantial evidence to sustain the determination and there...