Special Products Co. of Tenn. v. Jennings
| Decision Date | 08 December 1961 |
| Citation | 353 S.W.2d 561,209 Tenn. 316,13 McCanless 316 |
| Parties | SPECIAL PRODUCTS COMPANY OF TENNESSEE, Inc., v. L. B. JENNINGS, Commissioner of The Department of Employment Security, et al. 13 McCanless 316, 209 Tenn. 316, 353 S.W.2d 561 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Farris, Evans & Evans, Nashville, for appellant.
W. L. Moore, Chief Counsel, W. D. Dodson, Asst. Chief Counsel, Nashville, for appellee.
Sixty-two former employees of Special Products Company filed their claim for full employment insurance benefits with the Commissioner of Tennessee Department of Employment Security; their claims were allowed, approved by the Commissioner and also by the Board of Review, thereupon the Company filed its bill for certiorari in the Chancery Court of Hamilton County, and the result of the trial was that the Chancellor upheld the findings of the Commissioner and the Board of Review.
These aforementioned employees went out on strike on January 4, 1960, and the plant continued to operate with some employees, who did not join in the walk out, and others who were from time to time employed. The picket line was maintained by the striking employees, and they knew their jobs were being filled with replacements.
On July 12, 1960, they decided the strike was a lost cause, notified the employer that the strike had ended and applied for reemployment, which is a prerequisite of obtaining unemployment benefits. No benefits are available to employees while a labor dispute is in active progress. The jobs of these sixty-two employees having been filled, the employer had no work available for them on July 12, 1960.
The employer, in filling out the separation notices, stated that these employees were on strike from January 4, 1960, to July 12, 1960, and their jobs had been filled by others. The defendants then applied for unemployment benefits. Their claims were approved by the Commissioner and his finding confirmed by the Board of Review.
Special Products Company filed a protest against payment of benefits to claimants, seeking to have the claims partially disallowed on the ground of misconduct other than gross misconduct and to obtain a non-charge against its experience rating.
The Board of Review found that at the time the claims were filed, July 14, 1960, 'the parties offered unconditionally to return to their jobs,' and as of that time there was no labor dispute in active progress at the factory.
Section 50-1324, subd. A(1) T.C.A. provides as follows:
'If the commissioner finds that he or she has left his or her most recent work voluntarily without good cause connected with his or her work, such disqualification shall be for the week in which he or she files a claim for benefits subsequent to such separation from work, and for the four (4) weeks immediately following thereafter (in addition to the waiting period), and such individual shall have deducted from his or her maximum total benefit amount in his or her benefit year an amount equal to five (5) times his or her weekly benefit amount. * * *'
The finding under this Section of misconduct, or attempting to do so would require an adjudication of the merits of the labor dispute, and we are without jurisdiction to pass upon this question.
This cause involves the question of whether some sixty-two former employees of the appellant are entitled to unemployment compensation benefits after their having ended a strike by seeking to return to their former jobs but which jobs had, during the period of the strike, been filled by their former employer, the appellant, and consequently at the time they ended such strike no jobs were available for them.
Where striking employees refuse to return to work and take the risk that their jobs are going to be lawfully filled by new workers if they do not return, and they lose their jobs as a result thereof, are they (a) entitled to employment benefits immediately following their termination of the strike, with the employer's experience rating penalized thereby, or (b) disqualified for benefits for a limited period after their announcement of the strike termination, because they have either (1) voluntarily and without good cause left their employment under T.C.A. Sec. 50-1324, subd. A(1), or (2) been discharged for misconduct, other than gross, under T.C.A. Sec. 50-1324, subd. B(2), with the employer not penalized by a charge against its experience rating?
The Commissioner relies upon the case of Davis v. Aluminum Company of America, 204 Tenn. 135, 316 S.W.2d 24, to support the findings of the Board of Review.
In the Aluminum Company case it was pointed out that there were two types of statutes concerning disqualifications due to labor disputes. Some statutes provide...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quincy Corp. v. Aguilar
...the parties agreed to accept the decision of arbitrators on the unresolved aspects of the controversy); Special Prod. Co. of Tenn., Inc. v. Jennings, 209 Tenn. 316, 353 S.W.2d 561 (1961) (disqualification ceased to apply when the striking workers notified the employer, who had hired replace......
-
Central Foam Corp. v. Barrett
...by the worker when employment is severed under the circumstances presented in the instant case. Special Products Company of Tenn. v. Jennings, 209 Tenn. 316, 353 S.W.2d 561 (1962); Jackson v. Review Board of Indiana Employ. Sec. Div., 215 N.E.2d 355 (Ind.1966); Ruberoid Co. v. California Un......
-
Sarvis, Matter of
...work. Bailey v. Tennessee Dept. of Employment Security, 212 Tenn. 422, 370 S.W.2d 492 (1963); Special Products Co. of Tennessee v. Jennings, 209 Tenn. 316, 353 S.W.2d 561 (1962); Colee v. Employment Division, 25 Or.App. 39, 548 P.2d 167 (1976); Skookum Co., Inc. v. Employment Division, 24 O......
-
John Morrell & Co. v. South Dakota Dept. of Labor, Unemployment Ins. Div.
...to return to work in order to lift the labor dispute disqualification. See In re Sarvis, supra; Special Products Company of Tenn. v. Jennings, 209 Tenn. 316, 353 S.W.2d 561 (1961); Skookum Co., Inc. v. Employment Division, 24 Or.App. 271, 545 P.2d 914 (1976), aff'd at 276 Or. 303, 554 P.2d ......