Peaden v. Appeal Bd. of Mich. Employment Sec. Commission

• Decision Date: 13 April 1959
• Docket Number: No. 32,32
• Citation: 355 Mich. 613,96 N.W.2d 281
• Parties: Paul R. PEADEN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. APPEAL BOARD OF MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION and Michigan Employment Security Commission and Calumet Division, Calumet & Hecla, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 281

96 N.W.2d 281

355 Mich. 613

Paul R. PEADEN et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.APPEAL BOARD OF MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION and Michigan Employment Security Commission and Calumet Division, Calumet & Hecla, Inc.Defendants-Appellees.

No. 32.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 13, 1959.

DeFant & Lynch, Negaunee, for plaintiffs-appellants(Michael F. DeFant, Negaunee, of counsel).

Norman McLean, Calumet, for defendant-appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

CARR, Justice.

The order of the circuit court of Ingham County affirming on certiorari the decision of the defendantAppeal Board should be affirmed.That a labor dispute, beginning May 2, 1955, and continuing for a number of weeks thereafter, existed between Calumet & Hecla, Inc., and its employees, including the plaintiffs in this proceeding, is not open to question.The matter at issue is when the unemployment resulting from such dispute ended.

On the 12th of August, 1955, the employees through their union having rejected an offer made by the employer, the company issued a so-called liquidation notice stating in substance that it was closing its mines and plants, and liquidating the properties involved in the existing strike.However, negotiations were continued and on August 21, 1955, a new agreement was executed.Thereupon preparations were carried out for the resumption of operations.It appears that by September 10th following such operations reached a stage of normalcy.

On behalf of plaintiffs it was contended before the Appeal Board that the strike ended August 12th, at the time of the issuance of the notice of intended liquidation.Obviously, however, negotiations were continued thereafter, and resulted in an agreement being reached pursuant to which operations, and employment, were continued.The Appeal Board, after consideration of the testimony taken on the hearings before the referee, concluded that during the period beginning May 2, 1955, and ending September 10, 1955, plaintiffs were unemployed because of a labor dispute and were, in consequence, disqualified from receiving benefits during such period under provisions of section 29 of the employment security act ¹, C.L.S.1956, § 421.29(Stat.Ann.1957 Cum.Supp. § 17.531).

On appeal in the nature of certiorari the decision of the Appeal Board was upheld, the circuit judge saying, in part:

'This Court has reviewed the lengthy record in this cause and cannot find that the decision of the Appeal Board is contrary to the great weight of the evidence or contrary to law.There is no question that for the period between May 2 and August 13, 1955, the claimants were disqualified for benefits because of a labor dispute.On and after August 13, 1955, the labor dispute continued and the dispute ended on August 21, 1955.That nature of the Company's operations are such that they could not put everyone back to work immediately when the dispute ended, but rather it took several weeks to get the mines and various operations back in production.The record discloses that all employees were called back to work after the strike ended as quickly as possible, but some time had to elapse before all normal operations could be started again.The notice of August 12, 1955, that the Company was liquidating their business did not change the status that a strike was in progress.The labor dispute did not end until August 21, 1955, and all employees were called back to work as quickly as possible after that date.'

We are in accord with the conclusions of the circuit judge.The proofs taken in the proceeding clearly supported the factual findings of the Appeal Board.The application of the statutory provisions relating to disqualification to receive benefits, above cited, required the conclusion reached.

An analogous question was involved in Buzza v. Appeal Board of Michigan Unemployment Compensation Commission, 330 Mich. 223, 47 N.W.2d 11.It was there held that plaintiff employees were not entitled to receive unemployment benefits during the period following the ending of the strike and the completion of preparations by the employer to resume normal operations.It may be noted also that under section 38 of the employment security act, C.L.1948, § 421.38(Stat.Ann.1950 Rev. § 17.540), amended byP.A.1951, No. 251, the Court may not reverse the decision of the Appeal Board of the employment security commission on a finding of fact unless the decision 'is contrary to the great weight of the evidence.'As before indicated, the findings of the Board were clearly supported by the evidence taken in the proceeding.

The order of the circuit court of Ingham County is affirmed.Defendant employer is entitled to costs on the appeal to this Court.

DETHMERS and KELLY, JJ., concurred with CARR, J.

BLACK, Justice.

Plaintiff-claimants were and are employees of defendantCalumet Division--Calumet & Hecla, Inc.They applied for unemployment benefits under the Michigan employment security act, alleging (as the issue comes here) eligibility for such benefits starting as of August 12, 1955 and continuing through September 10, 1955.The commission and hearing referee upheld claimants and directed payment accordingly.The appeal board, sitting in review, reversed these rulings and, by way of conclusion of its lengthy findings, ruled as follows:

'It is held that the claimants were unemployed because of a work stoppage caused by a labor dispute in the establishment of Calumet Division, Calumet & Hecla, Inc. during the period beginning May 2, 1955 and ending at week ending September 10, 1955 and that the claimants are disqualified from obtaining such benefits for the above stated period under Section 29(1)(b) of the Act.'(C.L.S.1956, § 421.29).

Claimants thereupon sued out certiorari in the Ingham circuit to review the appeal board's determination.The circuit court found no error and entered an order of affirmance.From such order claimants have appealed to this Court.

The labor dispute viewed in the appeal board's findings threatened and then critically affected the economic welfare of what is known--in Michigan--as 'the copper country.'Comprising the counties of Houghton and Keweenaw and nearby territory, this is Michigan's remote and geologically historic Keweenaw peninsula.For upwards of a century the mining of copper and copper-bearing ores has furnished the leading source of employment and business in the area, and defendant Calumet has been the principal employer of copper miners and copper smelters therein.In most of the villages Calumet has provided and now provides necessary public utility services; also police and fire protection.It is in position to cut these services off at will.Here, indeed, will be found the substance of Ernie Ford's 'company town.'Comprehensive, then, is the picture of general economic woe in the copper country when Calumet is 'down.'Understandable also is the fact that the labor dispute we are to consider--for the sole purpose of determining whether there is a 'rational basis'¹ for the conclusions reached by the appeal board--was ultimately settled by jackscrew force of punitive and quite irresistible sanctions.

Calumet operates 'copper mines, smelters, a refinery, a railroad and other manufacturing installations in Houghton and Keweenaw counties.'Some 1,700 hourly rated employees in its production and maintenance departments were and are represented by the United Steel Workers of America-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the union.A working contract, agreed upon by the union and Calumet in 1954, was due to expire April 30, 1955.The union desired to 'terminate, reopen, or amend' the contract and served notice to such effect on Calumet.Negotiations were opened in February of the year and continued without fruitful result until May 1, on which date the union--these claimants participating--voted to strike Calumet.The strike was called for and commenced May 2, and continued with developing bitterness ² until August 10, on which date the union voted 'to reject the final offer' of Calumet.At this juncture the corporate hammerlock was applied to the copper country.August 12(a Friday) Calumet caused to be published, in the Daily Mining Gazette of Houghton (the daily newspaper of the copper country), that which counsel refer to as 'the liquidation order.'The salutation and pursuing declarations of such order portray graphically the overpowering play of the final hand.They read:

'To The People of the Copper Country:

'This letter is directed to the people of the Copper Country for the purpose of informing them of the situation confronting the Management of Calumet & Hecla and to let them know immediately what action the Management has found it necessary to take.* * *

'In the current dispute with the Union, we have sought all reasonable means to effect a settlement.We have endured a long, costly and illegal strike.We have maintained pumping of the mines, we have kept the smelter furnaces hot, and have continued to operate the utilities vital to the communities in which we have operated.We have done these things in the hope that an agreement could be reached.

'As soon as it became possible, we made an offer which was as liberal as possible.There is a limit beyond which it is impossible to go.We have reached that limit.However, a substantial majority of the members of the Union saw fit to reject our offer.

'In view of this clear-cut decision by the Union, I have no alternative but to exercise the authority voted by the Board of Directors on May 26, 1955, to liquidate the Calumet Division.Accordingly, the following action is being taken:

'1.All presently employed hourly rated and salaried employees not essential to the orderly liquidation of the Division are being laid off.Those salaried employees who can be employed in other activities of the Company will be transferred.

'2.All mine pumping is being terminated.

'3.Copper at the smelter will...