Sierant v. Catherwood

Decision Date15 May 1969
Citation249 N.E.2d 455,24 N.Y.2d 675,301 N.Y.S.2d 604
Parties, 249 N.E.2d 455 In the Matter of the Claim of Albert J. SIERANT et al., Appellants. Martin P. CATHERWOOD, as Industrial Commissioner, Respondent; General Mills, Inc., Respondent.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 695

Thomas P. McMahon, Buffalo, for appellants.

Arnold T. Olena and Robert M. Walker, Buffalo, for General Mills, Inc., respondent.

No appearance for Martin P. Catherwood, respondent.

FULD, Chief Judge.

The Legislature has provided, in subdivision 1 of section 592 of the Labor Law, Consol. Laws, c. 31, that employees who lose their employment because of a strike will not be paid unemployment benefits for a period of seven weeks, even though they took no part in that strike, if it

Page 696

occurred in the 'establishment' in which they worked. Insofar as pertinent, subdivision 1 provides:

'The accumulation of benefit rights by a claimant shall be suspended during a period of seven consecutive weeks beginning with the day after he lost his employment because of a strike, lockout, or other industrial controversy in the establishment in which he was employed'.

In the case before us, the claimants-appellants were employed by General Mills in various buildings in its plant in Buffalo, New York. A strike by longshoremen in the plant's grain elevators resulted in the claimants' loss of employment. Maintaining that that strike took place in an 'establishment' other than the one where they were employed, the claimants insisted that they were not subject to the suspension of benefits provided for by the statute. 1 The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, sustaining a decision of the Industrial Commissioner in the claimants' favor, determined that they were entitled to benefits from the first day on which they lost their employment. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the claims.

The employer respondent General Mills is a manufacturer of flour, cereals and other wheat products from the raw wheat grain. It operates a complex of grain elevators, flour and cereal mills and packaged food plants connected by overhead bridges in an area lying between the City Ship Canal and the Buffalo River and broken up by railroad tracks and public thoroughfares. Wheat, received from ships and railroad cars and stored and blended in the two grain elevators, is transported in the overhead bridges to other storage areas and to the several mills and plants. Originally, the elevators had been owned and operated by several corporations having nothing to do with the manufacture of wheat products. They supplied grain to the mill but, as one witness noted, '(h)istorically they were separate establishments.' There was ample evidence before the board to justify its conclusion that those elevators were separated from the other buildings not only by substantial distances but by railroad tracks and public thoroughfares. 2

On March 25, 1963, in protest against the layoff of several of their fellows, all of the employer's longshoremen, who work in the grain elevators,

Page 697

engaged in a wildcat strike. As a result of that strike, General Mills was unable to transfer grain from the elevators to other parts of its plant and was compelled, within a few days' time, to lay off a large number of employees, including the claimants, who worked in its flour and cereal mills, packaged food plants and other buildings. Although there were only some 40 strikers, about 315 nonstrikers were affected by the work stoppage; the remaining 500 employees continued to work. The strike was settled on April 24.

The longshoremen, who are represented by Local 1286, International Longshoremen's Association, perform all of their work in the grain elevators except that once a day a longshoreman goes to 'measure grain in the storage tanks. The contacts between the longshoremen and the mill workers are minimal. The two sets of employees belong to different unions, the longshoremen, as noted, to a local of the International Longshoremen's Association and the other employees to Local 36 of the American Federation of Grain Millers. Each union has different agreements with respect to wages, hours and working conditions. There is no interchange of personnel, the longshoremen being hired through the union or its hiring hall and the other employees from the street. The elevators and the mills have separate superintendents, and there are separate health, welfare and pensions plans. On the other hand, it should be noted, there are certain common facilities which serve both, such as the powerhouse, cafeteria, medical office, supply and storeroom offices, machine shop, personnel and payroll office and purchasing office.

Equating the word 'establishment' with 'place' rather than 'enterprise'--in accordance with our decision in Matter of Ferrara's Claim (Catherwood) 10 N.Y.2d 1, 217 N.Y.S.2d 11, 176 N.E.2d 43--the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board made a finding that the grain elevators constituted an establishment, separate and distinct from the various mills and packaging plants spread over the area. Therefore, the board concluded, since the claimants were not employed in the establishment in which the strike occurred, they were not subject to the seven-week suspension of benefits.

Section 623 of the Labor Law, insofar as pertinent, recites that a 'decision of the appeal board shall be final on all questions of fact and, unless appealed from, shall be final on all questions of law.' Accordingly, our task is simply to decide whether there was substantial evidence to sustain the board's determination and not whether there was evidence to support the Appellate Division's contrary decision. An appellate court may upset the determination of the Appeal Board only if it may be said, as matter of law, that the claimants were employed in the same establishment as the striking longshoremen. In the present case, it

Page 698

is clear, the board's determination is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld.

In Matter of Ferrara's Claim (Catherwood) 10 N.Y.2d 1, 217 N.Y.S.2d 11, 176 N.E.2d 43, supra, striking clerks of the National Airlines office at Idlewild caused a layoff of the company's mechanics in the Idlewild hangar and of its clerks who had been working in Manhattan. This court upheld the determination of the Appeal Board--confirmed by the Appellate Division--that the strikers and the other two sets of workers were not employed in the same establishment and that the latter were entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. In so doing, the court ruled that the word 'establishment' in the statute ( § 592, subd. 1) was to be equated with 'place or situs' rather than given 'an all-encompassing meaning equated with 'enterprise" (pp. 7, 8, 217 N.Y.S.2d, p. 15, 176 N.E.2d, p. 46) and, consequently, was to be 'defined in geographic terms rather than in terms of corporate organization or exercise of management powers and functions' (p. 8, 217 N.Y.S.2d, p. 16, 176 N.E.2d, p. 47). 3

Applying this principle to the facts of the case now before us, it certainly may not be said, as a matter of law, that the two grain elevators, which received wheat from ships and railroad cars for initial storing and blending, are located in the same 'place or situs' as the mills and processing and packaging plants--which, as already noted, are sprawled over a wide area--and, hence, that they constitute the same establishment. The elevators are removed by up to 400 feet from the mills and processing buildings and variously separated from them by three or four sets of tracks of a railroad spur, by another nine sets of railroad tracks and by public streets. Their geographic separateness is further emphasized by the fact...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Giant v. Dept. of Labor
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 4, 1999
    ...1401 (Haw.1971); Ford Motor Co. v. Burson, 225 Tenn. 486, 470 S.W.2d 941, 944 (Tenn.1971); In the Matter of Claim of Sierant, 24 N.Y.2d 675, 301 N.Y.S.2d 604, 608, 249 N.E.2d 455 (N.Y. 1969); Weiss v. Klein Super Markets, Inc., 259 Minn. 502, 108 N.W.2d 4, 7-9 (Minn.1961); Koll v. Egekvist ......
  • Claims of Falco-Ward, FALCO-WARD
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 23, 1987
    ...that claimants were employed in the same establishment as the striking employees (see, Matter of Sierant [Catherwood-Gen. Mills], 24 N.Y.2d 675, 679, 301 N.Y.S.2d 604, 249 N.E.2d 455). Labor Law § 592(1) provides for the suspension of benefits to employees, including nonparticipants, whose ......
  • MNORX, Inc. v. Ross
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • March 22, 1979
    ...may be said, as a matter of law, that a contrary determination is required by the record (Matter of Sierant (Catherwood-Gen. Mills), 24 N.Y.2d 675, 679, 301 N.Y.S.2d 604, 607, 249 N.E.2d 455, 456), examination of the record here convinces me that this is just such a The evidence adduced at ......
  • Weis' Claims, In re
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 8, 1971
    ...Law, § 592, subd. 1)--equating 'establishment' with "place' rather than 'enterprise" (Matter of Sierant (Catherwood-Gen. Mills), 24 N.Y.2d 675, 679, 301 N.Y.S.2d 604, 607, 249 N.E.2d 455, 456--457; see Matter of George (Catherwood), 14 N.Y.2d 234, 239, 250 N.Y.S.2d 421, 424, 199 N.E.2d 503,......
  • 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