Local Union No. 11 v. Gordon

• Decision Date: 17 March 1947
• Docket Number: No. 29697.,29697.
• Citation: 71 N.E.2d 637,396 Ill. 293
• Parties: LOCAL UNION NO. 11 v. GORDON et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

396 Ill. 293

71 N.E.2d 637

LOCAL UNION NO. 11

v.GORDON et al.

No. 29697.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 22, 1947.

Rehearing Denied March 17, 1947.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Sangamon County; Lawrence E. Stone, judge.

Certiorari proceeding by Local UnionNo. 11 on behalf of claimant members to review a decision of Robert L. Gordon, director of labor, and others denying claims for unemployment compensation.From a judgment of the Circuit Court affirming the decision of the director, the union on behalf of its claimant members appeals.

Affirmed.

SMITH, J., dissenting.

C. C. Dreman, of Belleville, and G. William Horsley, of Springfield, for appellant.

George F. Barrett, Atty. Gen. (Albert E. Hallett, of Chicago, of counsel), for appelleesDirector of Labor and others.

WILLSON, Justice.

The case arises under the Unemployment Compensation Act and originated in a controversy concerning the construction of the terms of a supplemental contract between LocalNo. 11, Progressive Mine Workers of America, and Panther Creek Mines, Inc.The contract, dated August 24, 1944, arranged a schedule of monthly installment payments for the liquidation of past-due vacation and portal-to-portal pay, for which the company was liable under the provisions of a master contract between the Coal Producers' Association of Illinois and Progressive Mine Workers of America, DistrictNo. 1.On August 12, 1944, the president of the local union notified the company that the men expected the money due them on August 28, 1944.The company did not pay an installment on August 28, 1944, because, under its interpretation of the contract, no installments were to become payable until September 28, 1944.On the following day, August 29, 1944, the union representatives requested the immediate payment of the installments then due under their construction of the contract and threatened that the men would not report for work if they were not paid.As the consequence of the company's refusal to meet the union's demand, no employees reported for work on the morning of August 30, 1944, and none returned to work until September 11, 1944.This is the period for which claims for unemployment compensation were filed.

After an investigation of the claims, a deputy for the Division of Placement and Unemployment Compensation of the Department of Labor made a determination that claimants were ineligible for benefits under section 7(d) of the act.LocalNo. 11, Progressive Mine Workers of America, for and on behalf of its claimant-members, appealed from this determination to the Director of the Department of Labor.The Director designated a representative to hear the appeal.Testimony was taken and, on February 28, 1945, the representative filed his report recommending that the claims be denied.On March 13, 1945, the Director confirmed the report.By writ of certiorari, the union appealed from the decision of the Director to the circuit court of Sangamon county.From a judgment of the circuit court, rendered January 7, 1946, affirming the decision of the Director, the union, on behalf of its claimant-members, prosecutes this appeal.

Panther Creek Mines, Inc., is a small corporation engaged in the operation of three coal mines in the Springfield area, only one of which, MineNo. 2, is involved in the present controversy.There, the company employs approximately 130 production and maintenance workers, the present claimants, all of whom are members of LocalNo. 11 of the Progressive Mine Workers of America.Despite the heavy demand of the war years the mine was shut down for lack of orders in April, 1944, and did not reopen until August 21, 1944.

The background of the controversy is found in the vacation-pay provisions of the then applicable master contract between the Coal Producers' Association and Progressive Mine Workers of America, DistrictNo. 1, which governed wages, hours and working conditions at the mine.So far as pertinent, the master contract provided: ‘Token payment: In view of the national emergency now existing, and for other reasons, we agree there shall be no stoppage of work for a vacation, and in lieu of such vacation, the operators agree to pay a maximum ‘token payment’ of $50.00 per year for the term of this contract.An employee eligible to the ‘token payment’ must have an employment work record of one year's standing with the company involved immediately prior to July 1st of each year.* * * The ‘token payment’ year shall be from July 1st through June 30th, and the payment shall be made not later than July 30th of each year during the term of this contract.'

Vacation pay thus fell due on July 30, 1944.The circumstances of the mine being shut down when the token payment became due and the conceded financial inability of the company to make the lumpsum payment required by the master contract were the two influential factors resulting in the execution of the supplemental contract of August 24, 1944.The agreement, exclusive of a recital of installmentpayments due after October 1944, reads as follows:

‘The following schedule represents arrangement to pay the $50.00 vacation payment and $52.50 portal to portal pay to the miners employed by Panther Creek Mines, Inc., LocalNo. 11.The total sum is $102.50.Eligibility to be determined by the contract.

+------------------------------------------------+
                ¦                            ¦Amount Paid to Date¦
                +----------------------------+-------------------¦
                ¦                            ¦         ¦         ¦
                +----------------------------+---------+---------¦
                ¦$7.00 paid on July 28, 1944,¦         ¦         ¦
                +----------------------------+---------+---------¦
                ¦Vacation Pay                ¦$ 7.00   ¦         ¦
                +----------------------------+---------+---------¦
                ¦$8.00 to be paid Aug. 28,   ¦         ¦         ¦
                +----------------------------+---------+---------¦
                ¦1944, Vacation Pay          ¦15.00    ¦         ¦
                +----------------------------+---------+---------¦
                ¦$10.00 to be paid Sept. 28, ¦         ¦         ¦
                +----------------------------+---------+---------¦
                ¦1944, Vacation Pay          ¦25.00    ¦         ¦
                +----------------------------+---------+---------¦
                ¦$10.00 to be paid Oct. 28,  ¦         ¦         ¦
                +----------------------------+---------+---------¦
                ¦1944, Travel Time Pay       ¦         ¦$10.00   ¦
                +------------------------------------------------¦
                ¦* * * * * *                                     ¦
                +------------------------------------------------+
                

‘At a mine where an employee is either temporarily or indefinitely out of work the monthly payments will be held up until such time as he may notify the company that he wants to be paid.He will then be paid all accrued payments on the 28th of that month, providing the company was notified not later than the 15th of the month.

‘This agreement entered into on August 24th, 1944.

'For the Miners

'(s)Joe Knowski

For the Operators

(s) Thos. J. Greenan'

It is not altogether clear from the testimony whether the union's request on August 12, 1944, for payment on August 28, 1944, was a general demand under the master contract or was made in contemplation of the supplemental contract executed twelve days later.The union treated the demand as conforming to the supplemental contract.This is not surprising inasmuch as an identical contract was in force at the other Panther Creek Mines and presumably was the subject of negotiation at MineNo. 2.In any event, no other notification, either collective or individual, was given to the company.On August 28, 1944, the men received their current pay and nothing more.The next day, the ‘pit committee’ requested the immediate payment of the July 28 and August 28 installments, totaling $15 per man, and, on the following day, August 30, 1944, made good its threat to close the mine if its demands were not met.

The principal controversy between the company and the union stemmed from the notification provision of the supplemental contract.The company contended that the employees at MineNo. 2 were either temporarily or indefinitely out of work and interpreted the provision as requiring, first, that the men make individual requests for payment and, secondly, that such requests must be made after the date of the contract and prior to the 15th day of the month in which they expected payment.Accordingly, the company took the position that September 28, 1944, was the first date on which the installement payments could possibly become due and then only in the event individual requests for payment were made prior to September 15, 1944.The union insisted that the notification provisions were inapplicable, contending that the employees had not been temporarily or indefinitely out of work and that, in any event, the notice given to the company on August 12, 1944, met the requirements of the contract.

As a result of the continued failure of the men to report for work there was a complete cessation of operations at the mine from August 30, 1944, until the morning of September 11, 1944, when, the company and the union having composed their differences, the men returned to the mine and normal production was resumed.The parties concede that, during this period, no picket line was formed at the mine and that the company had sufficient orders on hand to have kept the mine in continuous operation.

Claimants' applications for benefits have been successively denied by the deputy, the Director of Labor and the circuit court on the ground that their unemployment was due to a stoppage of work resulting from a labor dispute.Section 7(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Act (Ill. Rev.Stat. 1945, chap. 48, par. 223(d), so far as relevant, provides: ‘An individual shall be ineligible for benefits-* * * (d) For any week with respect to which it is found that his total or partial unemploymentis due to a stoppage of work which exists because of a labor dispute at the factory, establishment, or other premises at which he is or was...