Scott v. Budd Co., 32

Citation155 N.W.2d 161,380 Mich. 29
Decision Date10 January 1968
Docket NumberNo. 32,32
PartiesClarence SCOTT, Dwight Knapp et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The BUDD COMPANY, Appeal Board of the Michigan Employment Security Commission, and the Michigan Employment Security Commission, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtSupreme Court of Michigan

Stephen I. Schlossberg, John A. Fillion, Bernard F. Ashe, Jordan Rossen, Michael Friedman, Detroit, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Beaumont, Smith & Harris, Frank E. Cooper, Edward H. Cooper, Detroit, for the Budd Co., defendant-appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

ADAMS, Justice.

The main question in this case is the construction of the following language in effect at the time of these proceedings which was contained in section 29(1) (b) of the Michigan employment security act as amended by P.A.1963, No. 226 (C.L.S.1961, § 421.29 as amended (Stat.Ann.1963 Cum.Supp. § 17.531)):

'An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:

'For any week with respect to which his total or partial unemployment is due to a labor dispute in active progress, or to shutdown or start-up operations caused by such labor dispute, in the establishment in which he is or was last employed, * * *. No individual shall be disqualified * * * if he is not directly involved in such dispute.'

THE FACTS

On Wednesday, October 30, 1963, a number of employees in the foundry section of the brake drum manufacturing operation of the Budd Company, in its Detroit plant on Charlevoix Avenue, walked off the job in protest of disciplinary action taken by management against two employees. As a result, production of castings was substantially curtailed. Through negotiations to settle the matter, start-up operations began in the foundry section on the second shift of Friday, November 1, 1963. All foundry employees reported for work on the following Monday. No work had been scheduled for Saturday or Sunday.

The foundry section was equipped to produce approximately 24 separate types of passenger car brake drum castings but only 10 to 12 types in a given day. Foundry capacity was running in the range of 25,000 to 30,000 castings per day. October and November were months of peak requirements. The delivery demand for brake drums averaged from 30,000 to 32,000 daily, except Saturday and Sunday. Budd Company, in the summer of 1963, had built up a bank of brake drum castings as a source of extra supply. During October and November, 1963, the castings on hand of all types approximated 80,000 to 90,000.

In the 1963 manufacturing process, brake drums cast in the foundry were carried by conveyor line to a cleaning room and next transported by conveyor line to the hub and drum machining section located in the same building. Here 19 or 20 machining lines employed approximately 500 persons. These lines lacked tooling versatility to machine the castings interchangeably on different lines. Each line was set up to machine a specific casting. Employment on a particular machining line was dependent on the availability of the type of casting scheduled for processing by that line.

Under normal conditions, the machining capacity of the hub and drum division was 25,000 to 30,000 pieces a day. When the walk-out occurred, management began to withdraw castings from the bank to maintain operations in the machining section. By Monday morning, November 4, 1963, the bank of castings had been reduced to such an extent that full operations in the machining section were not possible.

Although employees were back at work in the foundry on Monday, November 4, it was not feasible to produce all types of castings the same day. Only 10 to 12 types could be produced due to limitations of time in setting up equipment. The company adopted a cycling pattern in the foundry so as to manufacture as many drums as possible and to rebuild the castings bank.

Because castings for some lines were not available from the foundry or from the bank, the company began laying off employees on those lines. Around 64 employees These 45 claimants are within the group employed in the machining section and laid off on November 4 or 5, except for claimant Dwight Knapp who was employed in the quality control section of the wheel division. His job was to inspect wheels, rims and discs--'in other words, the components that make up a wheel.' He had nothing to do with inspecting drums for passenger cars. Knapp testified he was laid off on November 5 because of being 'bumped' from his position by someone exercising greater seniority rights. Knapp's explanation was:

were laid off on November 4 and an additional 21 on November 5. The majority were recalled on November 11 and 12 and all were back at work by the 18th.

'Some other man replaced me on my job. My job continued to run, but I was replaced by a senior employee.'

Knapp was called back to work on November 13.

A benefit check for the week ending November 9, 1963, paid to Clarence Scott, was protested before the Michigan Employment Security Commission by the Budd Company. The protest was disallowed, the claims interviewer making a determination of no disqualification. On February 25, 1964, a redetermination was issued by the commission in which it was ruled that no legal basis existed to impose a disqualification. The hearing referee affirmed the redetermination issued by the commission. By decision dated July 12, 1965, the appeal board reversed the referee and held that the 45 claimants were disqualified for benefits within the meaning of section 29 of the act. On appeal to the circuit court, the circuit judge upheld the findings and determination of the appeal board. This Court granted leave to appeal and to by-pass the Court of Appeals.

THE LAW

The above narrative of the facts, while disputed in some particulars by plaintiffs-appellants, is supported by the great weight of the evidence. 1 Much of appellants' brief is occupied with evidentiary matters which cannot be the concern of this Court. The appeal board's findings of fact (except for the case of Dwight Knapp which will be dealt with hereafter), affirmed by the circuit court, that the unemployment of appellants was due to shutdown or start-up operations caused by a labor dispute is conclusive.

The basic question of law presented involves an interpretation of section 29(1)(b), partially quoted above, disqualifying for unemployment benefits any claimant whose employment 'is due to a labor dispute in active progress, or to shutdown or start-up operations caused by such labor dispute.'

It is the claim of appellants that individuals who become unemployed because of shutdown or start-up operations caused by a labor dispute in the establishment in which they are employed would not be disqualified unless the labor dispute remains in active progress during the time that the shutdown or start-up operations occur.

From 1941 until enactment of the 1963 act, the language of the statute read:

'An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: * * * For any week with respect to which his total or partial unemployment is due to a stoppage of work existing because of a labor dispute in the establishment in which he is or was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Smith v. Michigan Employment Sec. Commission, Docket Nos. 62991
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • February 3, 1981
    ...statutory construction that, if at all possible, no word should be treated as mere surplusage or rendered nugatory. Scott v. Budd Co., 380 Mich. 29, 37, 155 N.W.2d 161 (1968); Stowers v. Wolodzko, 386 Mich. 119, 133, 191 N.W.2d 355 A plain reading of the first sentence of § 29(8) indicates ......
  • Stowers v. Wolodzko, 2
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • November 9, 1971
    ...word should be given meaning and no word should be treated as surplusage or rendered nugatory if at all possible. Scott v. Budd Company (1968), 380 Mich. 29, 155 N.W.2d 161; Melia v. Employment Security Comm. (1956), 346 Mich. 544, 78 N.W.2d 273. Under the statute a clear distinction is mad......
  • Doerr v. Universal Engineering Division, Houdaille Industries, Inc., Docket No. 78-389
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • June 5, 1979
    ...in support of the "absolute cause" theory are actually cases standing for the "cause-in-fact" proposition. See Scott v. Budd Co., 380 Mich. 29, 155 N.W.2d 161 (1968); Abbott v. Unemployment Compensation Comm., 323 Mich. 32, 34 N.W.2d 542 (1948); Dann v. Employment Security Comm., 38 Mich.Ap......
  • State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Ruuska, Docket No. 78-820
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • June 19, 1979
    ...Baker v. General Motors Corp., 74 Mich.App. 237, 246, 254 N.W.2d 45 (1977), Lv. gtd. 402 Mich. 828 (1977); Scott v. Budd Co., 380 Mich. 29, 37, 155 N.W.2d 161 (1968). Therefore, we hold that an exclusion to liability coverage when driving a particular vehicle or class of vehicles is valid. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT