Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Bowling

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: SULLIVAN; SULLIVAN
• Citation: Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Bowling, 429 N.E.2d 172, 99 Ill.App.3d 1117, 57 Ill.Dec. 521 (Ill. App. 1981)
• Decision Date: 28 August 1981
• Docket Number: No. 80-1471,INC,OWENS-ILLINOI,80-1471
• Parties: , 57 Ill.Dec. 521 , an Ohio Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William M. BOWLING, Director, Department of Labor, State of Illinois; Abe M. Linderman, Director of Labor's Representative; Cecil Harlon, Guy Mudd, and Charles Gercke, individually and on behalf of claimant employee-members of Local 24, Glass Bottle Blowers Association; Steven Abbott, Mary Cope, James Henschel, Robert Merse and Warren Weller, individually and on behalf of claimant employee- members of Local 40, Glass Bottle Blowers Association; Howard Nash, Robert Middleton and Donald Walston, individually and on behalf of claimant employee-members of Local 95, Glass Bottle Blowers Association; Jack Franklin and Robert Pollard, individually and on behalf of claimant employee-- members of Local 135, Glass Bottle Blowers Association; Roger Wooff, Ray Call and Joseph Harris, individually and on behalf of claimant employee-members of American Flint Glass Workers Union, Local 109; Willie Gates and George Knecht, individually and on behalf of claimant employee-members of United Steelworkers of America, Local 7432; Lawrence Conner, individually and on behalf of claimant employee-members of Local 3, Glass Bottle Blowers Association; Jack Grahm, individually and on behalf of claimant employee- members of Local 140, Glass Bottle Blowers Association, Defendants-Appellees.

Page 172

429 N.E.2d 172

99 Ill.App.3d 1117, 57 Ill.Dec. 521

OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., an Ohio Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William M. BOWLING, Director, Department of Labor, State of Illinois; Abe M. Linderman, Director of Labor's Representative; Cecil Harlon, Guy Mudd, and Charles Gercke individually and on behalf of claimant employee-members of Local 24, Glass Bottle Blowers Association; Steven Abbott Mary Cope, James Henschel, Robert Merse and Warren Weller individually and on behalf of claimant employee- members of Local 40, Glass Bottle Blowers Association; Howard Nash Robert Middleton and Donald Walston, individually and on behalf of claimant employee-members of Local 95, Glass Bottle Blowers Association; Jack Franklin and Robert Pollard, individually and on behalf of claimant employee-- members of Local 135, Glass Bottle Blowers Association; Roger Wooff, Ray Call and Joseph Harris, individually and on behalf of claimant employee-members of American Flint Glass Workers Union, Local 109; Willie Gates and George Knecht, individually and on behalf of claimant employee-members of United Steelworkers of America, Local 7432; Lawrence Conner, individually and on behalf of claimant employee-members of Local 3, Glass Bottle Blowers Association; Jack Grahm, individually and on behalf of claimant employee- members of Local 140, Glass Bottle Blowers Association, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 80-1471.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division.

Aug. 28, 1981.

Supplemental Opinion on Denial of Rehearing Dec. 8, 1981.

(On Rehearing)

Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz, John A. Relias, and Michael W. Duffee, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant.

Tyrone C. Fahner, Atty. Gen., Chicago, for defendant-appellee Illinois Director of Labor; Joseph D. Keenan III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, of counsel.

Irving M. Friedman and Michael B. Erp, Chicago, for Local 24, 40, 95 and 135 of the Glass Bottle Blowers Ass'n and by Local 109 of the American Flint Glass Workers Union; Katz, Friedman, Schur & Eagle, Chicago, of counsel.

SULLIVAN, Presiding Justice:

Plaintiff seeks administrative review (Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 110, par. 264 et seq.) of three related decisions by the Director of the Illinois Department of Labor which awarded unemployment insurance benefits to certain of plaintiffs' employees under the Unemployment Insurance Act (the Act) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 48, par. 300 et seq.) The issues presented by plaintiff on appeal are whether (1) the trial court erred (a) in denying plaintiff's motion to maintain the action as a class action and (b) in allowing certain evidence to be added to the record; (2) the Director of Labor (Director) (a) improperly refused to determine the eligibility of plaintiff's employees under the Act and (b) improperly determined that they were not involved in a labor dispute and thus were not ineligible for benefits.

The facts of this case are largely undisputed. In 1977, plaintiff was negotiating the terms of a new nationwide collective-bargaining agreement with representatives of the American Flint Glass Workers Union (AFGWU) which, through its various locals, represented certain skilled glass mold-making employees at several of plaintiff's plants. To strengthen its bargaining position, the AFGWU engaged in a nationwide economic strike against plaintiff, which took place between September 16, 1977 and October 15, 1977. Many of plaintiff's employees at its Illinois facilities-in particular Alton Plant No. 7, Alton Mold Manufacturing Plant, and the Streator plant-became involved in the strike. The AFGWU strike directly involved a relatively small number of plaintiff's employees, but many non-AFGWU employees (hereafter claimants) who comprised the majority of the total work force at the three plants declined to cross the AFGWU picket lines to come to work during the strike, and they filed claims for unemployment benefits with the Illinois Department of Labor, Division of Unemployment Insurance (Department).

Employees at Alton Plant No. 7 are represented by Local 123 of the AFGWU and by various locals of the Glass Bottle Blowers Association (GBBA). Local 123 represented approximately 25 employees at the time of the strike. Approximately 1,440 employees were represented by the GBBA locals which were parties to collective-bargaining agreements in effect at the time and containing no-strike clauses for the contract term. When the AFGWU strike began, nearly all of the GBBA employees refused to cross picket lines for the duration of the strike, and they filed claims for unemployment benefits with the Department. Although there was work for those employees at the time, their absence forced plaintiff to almost completely cease operations at the plant. Moreover, plaintiff's officials repeatedly informed the presidents of the various GBBA locals, both before and during the strike, that work was available for their members and that they should report to the plant in accordance with their contractual obligations. The GBBA did not order their men to cross picket lines but told them it was a matter of personal choice for each employee. While no employee took part in the picketing, they continued to respect the AFGWU lines.

At the Alton Mold Manufacturing Plant, which is adjacent to but an entirely separate operation from Alton Plant No. 7, Local 43, AFGWU, represented some 385 employees, and Local 109, AFGWU, represented another 90 workers. Also at that plant, approximately 70 employees were members of Local 7432, United Steel Workers of America, which was party to a collective-bargaining agreement with plaintiff containing a no-strike clause in effect during the strike. Local 109 also had a collective-bargaining agreement with plaintiff containing a similar no-strike provision. The contract between Local 109 and plaintiff had expired by its terms on August 31, 1977, but in accordance with long-standing practice, Local 109, which was not included in the nationwide negotiations, extended its contract until after conclusion of the Local 43 contract. When the strike by Local 43 commenced, members of Local 7432 and Local 109 refused to cross picket lines established jointly by Locals 43 and 123 at the two Alton facilities. They also refrained from picketing and remained unemployed during the strike although they and their union leadership were repeatedly informed by plaintiff before and during the strike that work was available and that they should report to the plant. The unions permitted each employee to make that decision independently. Those non-AFGWU employees also filed claims for unemployment insurance with the Department.

At plaintiff's Streator Plant, Local 85, AFGWU, represented some 50 employees. Local 3, GBBA, represented approximately 225 employees, and Local 140, GBBA, represented about 1,700 employees. At the time in question, employees of Locals 3 and 140 worked under collective-bargaining agreements containing no-strike provisions for the life of the agreement. When the strike commenced, employees of both GBBA locals initially refused to cross picket lines, although they were told before and during the strike that the plant would continue to operate and work would be available. The presidents of both locals informed their respective memberships of their contractual obligations to return to work, but most of the GBBA employees failed to do so and filed claims for unemployment compensation. However, by October 1, 1977, two weeks after the strike began, from 400 to 600 GBBA employees did return.

A Department claims adjudicator ruled with respect to claimants at each of plaintiff's facilities that they were "not ineligible" for unemployment insurance benefits under section 604 of the Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 48, par. 434.) No evidence was found that claimants were directly interested or otherwise involved in the AFGWU's labor dispute with plaintiff, but no specific findings were made of claimants' eligibility under section 500 C of the Act. Ill.Rev.Stat.1977, ch. 48, par. 420 C.

Separate appeals from each ruling were taken before the Director's Representative. At the hearing concerning claimants at the Alton Plant No. 7, four GBBA representatives testified that during the strike they filed unemployment benefits claims and, with one exception, had not actively sought substitute work during the strike. There was also testimony that the Department's policy concerning the eligibility requirements of section 500 C is not to require persons unemployed due to a labor dispute to actively seek work as a condition of eligibility. Similarly, at the hearing for the Alton Mold Manufacturing Plant, union representatives for Local 7432 and Local 109 appeared on behalf of their respective union memberships. The Director's Representative granted plaintiff's request to take formal notice that it was the Department's policy not to make findings of claimant eligibility under section 500 C in cases involving labor disputes. The only claimant to testify stated that he had made no formal applications for work while receiving unemployment benefits and that he had only made general inquiries about work at the unemployment office and from friends and neighbors. Finally, at the hearing for the Streator plant, the representative for Local 3 gave the only testimony concerning substitute work. He stated that he had looked for work during the strike on two occasions prior to receiving unemployment benefits. Also, formal notice was taken at the hearing as to the Department's policy not to make individual determinations of eligibility under section 500 C in labor dispute cases.

On March 9, 1979, the Director's Representative issued recommended decisions on plaintiff's three appeals. The reasoning and conclusions concerning Alton Plant No. 7 were incorporated by reference in the decisions on the other two plants. The Representative found, first of all, that with respect to the 500 C issue, those...