Moen v. Director of Division of Employment Sec.

• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Citation: 85 N.E.2d 779,324 Mass. 246
• Decision Date: 26 April 1949
• Parties: PETER F. MOEN v. DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY & others.

324 Mass. 246

85 N.E.2d 779

PETER F. MOEN v. DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY & others.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Worcester.

April 26, 1949

December 9, 1948.

Present: QUA, C.

J., LUMMUS, RONAN SPALDING, & WILLIAMS, JJ.

Employment Security. Labor and Labor Union. Contract, Of employment With labor union.

An agreement respecting vacations made between an employer and a labor union which had been designated as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the employer's employees under U.S.C. (1946 ed.) Title

29, Section 159 (a), was as binding on one of such employees as though he had made it personally with the employer.

An employee, who was idle without pay due to his employer's plant being shut down for a vacation period with pay provided for other employees, to which he was not entitled, all pursuant to the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement made between his employer and a labor union which had been designated as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for all his employer's employees, was voluntarily unemployed and therefore was not entitled to unemployment benefits under

G. L. (Ter.

Ed.) c. 151A Section 25 (e) (1), as appearing in St. 1941, c. 685, Section 1.

PETITION, filed in the Central District Court of Worcester on January 17, 1948 for review of a decision of the board of review in the division of employment security.

The case was heard by Allen, J. S. S. Grant, for the petitioner.

B. M. Hall, Assistant Attorney General, (E.

N. Boisclair with him,) for Director of the Division of Employment Security.

SPALDING, J. The claimant appeals from a decision of the Central District Court of Worcester which affirmed a decision of the board of review in the division of employment security in the department of labor and industries denying unemployment benefits under the employment security law. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 151A, as appearing in

St. 1941, c.

685, Section 1, as amended. Proceedings in the District Court and appeal from that court directly to this court are under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 151A, Section 42, as appearing in St. 1943, c. 534, Section 6, as amended by St. 1947, c. 434. Since by Section 42 the findings of the board of review are conclusive "if supported by any evidence," only questions of law are reviewable in the District Court and here. Pacific Mills v. Director of the Division of Employment Security, 322 Mass. 345 , 346. Wagstaff v. Director of the Division of Employment Security, 322 Mass. 664 , 667. Rivers v. Director of the Division of Employment Security, 323 Mass. 339. Farrar v. Director of the Division of Employment Security, ante, 45, 47-48.

The facts, which are not in dispute, are as follows: The claimant worked in the Worcester plant of The American Steel and Wire Company of New Jersey (hereinafter called the company), and at all times here material was a member of the United Steelworkers of America (CIO), a labor union with which the company had entered into a collective bargaining agreement. ^[1] It appears that the union had been designated the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the company's employees and that it became a party to the agreement "in its capacity as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of such employees.

" The agreement provided that employees who had been in the service of the company for a certain period of time were eligible for a vacation with pay in any calendar year during the term of the agreement, and that "eligible employee[s] shall receive a vacation" of one, two, or three weeks, depending on their length of service with the company. The agreement further provided that "It is understood and agreed that a period of temporary shutdown in any department for any reason between June 1 and October 1, unless other periods are mutually agreed upon, may be designated as comprising the vacation period for any employees of the department who are eligible for vacations."

For the weeks ending on July 5 and July 12, 1947, the company's plant was shut down to enable its employees to take their vacations. Since the claimant had not been in the service of the company for the requisite length of time to make him eligible for a vacation with pay under the agreement, he received no compensation for the period of the shutdown and because of it was unable to render any services for the company. It is for this period that he claims compensation. Compensation was denied by the director. Upon review, an examiner ruled that the claimant was not entitled to compensation. The board of review by denying the claimant's application for further review adopted the decision of the examiner. G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 151A, Section 41, as appearing in St. 1941, c. 685, Section 1. Wagstaff v. Director of the Division of Employment Security, 322 Mass. 664 , 665.

The question for decision, as the parties agree, is whether on the foregoing facts the board committed error of law in denying compensation to the claimant. The provisions of the employment security law pertinent to this question are the following: "Section 24. An individual, in order to be eligible for benefits under this chapter, shall . . . (b) Be capable of and available for work and unable to obtain work in his usual occupation or any other occupation for which he is reasonably fitted . . .. Section 25. No waiting period shall be allowed and no benefits shall be paid to an individual under this chapter for . . . (d) Any period with respect to which he is receiving or has received or is about to receive remuneration in the form of . . . (2) vacation allowances . . .. (e) The period of unemployment next ensuing after an individual has left his employment; (1) Voluntarily without good cause attributable to the employing unit or its agent."

It is plain that the claimant's...