Rainfair, Inc. v. Cobb

• Decision Date: 12 May 1958
• Docket Number: No. 5-1529,5-1529
• Citation: 312 S.W.2d 906,229 Ark. 37
• Parties: RAINFAIR, Inc., Appellant, v. Norma J. COBB et al., Appellees.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 906

312 S.W.2d 906

229 Ark. 37

RAINFAIR, Inc., Appellant, v. Norma J. COBB et al., Appellees.

No. 5-1529.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

May 12, 1958.

Shaver & Shaver, Wynne, for appellant.

McMath, Leatherman & Woods, Little Rock, for appellees.

ROBINSON, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court affirming a decision of the Board of Review holding that certain former employees of appellant, Rainfair, Inc., are not disqualified under Ark.Stat. § 81-1106(a), as amended by Act 162 of 1953. This section provides for ten weeks' disqualification if employee voluntarily and without good cause connected with the work left his last work.

Appellant, Rainfair, employs about 107 workers. On the 2nd day of May, 1955, about 25 of the employees did not show up for work. On that same day Mr. James E. Youngdahl, director of organization for the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, notified Rainfair by letter that the employees had gone on strike because of unfair labor practices. The letter from Mr. Youngdahl to Rainfair further states: 'We are ready and willing to meet with representatives of your company at any time or place to make arrangements to have our majority status at Wynne, Arkansas, checked against your payroll by some neutral person as previously requested by myself of your officials at Wynne several weeks ago.'

The issue between the workers and Rainfair was whether the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Union would be recognized by Rainfair as a bargaining agent for the employees, who were not at the time members of a union. On the same day, May 2nd, Rainfair sent the employees who had not come to work that day the following letter: 'We notice that you did not come to work today. We do not know what the cause is for your being absent. You realize that it is necessary for us to have a full complement of employees in order to get our necessary production. Therefore, if you do not return to work by Thursday, May 5, 1955, we will assume that you have resigned and no longer wish to work for us. In that case it will be necessary for us to replace you. We hope that you return to work.'

On May 18th the employees abandoned the effort to have the Clothing Workers Union recognized as the bargaining agent and offered to return to work unconditionally. On May 19th they went to Rainfair's place of business to go to work, but were told that no work was available. On June 20, 1955, they again informed Rainfair that they were on a strike. This second notification of being on strike was completely meaningless, because prior to that time they had been discharged.

The appellant, Rainfair, contends that the employees voluntarily quite their jobs and are therefore disqualified to receive unemployment compensation for a period of ten weeks as provided by Ark.Stat. § 81-1106, as amended by Act 162 of 1953.

The appellees contend that they did not voluntarily quit their work on May 2nd, but went out on strike; that there was a labor dispute. They make no contention that they were entitled to compensation during the time they were on strike, as provided by Ark.Stat. § 81-1106(d). But they do contend that when they called off the strike and offered to return to work on May 18th and were refused work by Rainfair, they immediately became eligible for unemployment compensation.

This case is controlled by Little Rock Furniture Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner of Labor, Ark., 298 S.W.2d 56, 59. There the court said: 'When the claimants offered to return to work on November 30th, they removed themselves from the disqualification of Sub-division (d) of § 81-1106 * * *'.

Appellant attempts to distinguish the case at bar from the Little Rock Furniture Manufacturing Company case on the theory that in the cited case the unemployment grew out of a labor dispute and that in the case at bar it is simply a situation where some employees voluntarily quit their jobs without a just cause. It is clear from the evidence that the employees did not quit their jobs in the usual sense of the word. They simply went out on strike, hoping thereby to prevail on the employer to recognize a union of their choice as their bargaining agent. When it was apparent that their strike would not succeed, they attempted to return to work, but the employer in the meantime had arranged to do without their services and the jobs they left were no longer available to them. This is the same situation as existed in the Little Rock Furniture Manufacturing Company case, and it was held that the employees were not disqualified under Ark.Stat. § 81-1106(a).

Affirmed.

HOLT and WARD, JJ., dissent.

WARD, Justice (dissenting).

I submit that the majority is wrong in holding this case is controlled by the Little Rock Furniture Mfg. Co. case, 298 S.W.2d 56, 59. Such a conclusion evades the real issue presented in the case under consideration; i.e. did appellees leave their employment voluntarily? A summary of the material facts and issues in the two cases will show the distinction.

In...