State ex rel. Employment Sec. Commission v. Jarrell, 593
| Decision Date | 03 February 1950 |
| Docket Number | No. 593,593 |
| Citation | 57 S.E.2d 403,231 N.C. 381 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION, v. JARRELL et al. |
Pierce & Blakeney, Charlotte, for Pee Dee Mfg. Co., appellant.
W. D. Holoman, R. B. Overton, R. B. Billings, and D. G. Ball, Raleigh, for Employment Security Commission, appellee.
Under the statute providing for judicial review of the decisions of the Employment Security Commission, the findings of fact of the Commission are binding upon the reviewing court if supported by evidence, and the judicial review is limited to determining whether errors of law have been committed by the Commission. G.S. § 96-15(i); Unemployment Compensation Comm. v. L. Harvey & Son Co., 227 N.C. 291, 42 S.E.2d 86; In re Steelman, 219 N.C. 306, 13 S.E.2d 544; 135 A.L.R. 929. For this reason, the function of the reviewing court is ordinarily two-fold: (1) To determine whether there was evidence before the Commission to support its findings of fact; and (2) to decide whether the facts found sustain the conclusions of law and the resultant decision of the Commission. Unemployment Compensation Comm. v. Harvey & Son Co., supra.
The appellant has not preserved any exceptions to any of the findings of fact of the Commission. Russos v. Bailey, 228 N.C. 783, 47 S.E.2d 22; Smith v. Davis, 228 N.C. 172, 45 S.E.2d 51, 174 A.L.R. 643; Rader v. Queen City Coach Co., 225 N.C. 537, 35 S.E.2d 609. Hence, we are spared the task of determining whether the testimony before the Commission supported the facts found by it.
The appellant's exception raises this question: Do the facts found by the Commission sustain the judgment of the Superior Court? Since this judgment merely affirmed the decision of the Commission, recourse must be had to that decision and to the legal premise on which it rests for the solution of our problem.
The issue before the Commission was whether the claimants were barred from recovery of the benefits claimed by them by this provision of the statute: 'An individual shall be disqualified for benefits * * * For any week with respect to which the commission finds that his total or partial unemployment is due to a stoppage of work which exists because of a labor dispute at the factory, establishment, or other premises at which he is or was last employed, provided that this subsection shall not apply if it is shown to the satisfaction of the commission that--(1) He is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the labor dispute which caused the stoppage of work; and (2) He does not belong to a grade or class of workers of which, immediately before the commencement of the stoppage, there were members employed at the premises at which the stoppage occurs, any of whom are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute.' G.S. § 96-14(d).
Each of the claimants was required to show to the satisfaction of the Commission that he was not disqualified for benefits under the Employment Security Law by this statute. In re Steelman, supra. This being so, the decision of the Commission constituted an adjudication that the 55 claimants were not disqualified for benefits under G.S. § 96-14(d). As the claimants did not base their claims on the proviso in the statute, this adjudication was necessarily bottomed upon the conclusion of law that the unemployment of the claimants during the periods covered by their claims was not due to a stoppage of work which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lennane v. Adt, LLC
...Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n of N.C. , 363 N.C. 562, 564, 681 S.E.2d 776 (2009) ; State ex rel. Emp. Sec. Comm'n v. Jarrell , 231 N.C. 381, 384, 57 S.E.2d 403 (1950). We review de novo whether the Division's findings of fact support the conclusions of law. Carolina Power ,......
-
Peaden v. Appeal Bd. of Mich. Employment Sec. Commission
...legislature has determined that benefits will not be paid under the Unemployment Compensation Act.' State ex rel. Employment Security Comm. v. Jarrell, 231 N.C. 381, 57 S.E.2d 403, 406. In this case, during the course of a 'labor dispute,' the employer posted the following 'Notice to all em......
-
Halifax Paper Co. v. Roanoke Rapids Sanitary Dist., 169
...conclusions of law are not supported by the facts. Culbreth v. Britt Corp., 231 N.C. 76, 56 S.E.2d 15; State ex rel. Employment Security Comm. v. Jarrell, 231 N.C. 381, 57 S.E.2d 403; Roach v. Pritchett, 228 N.C. 747, 47 S.E.2d 20; Lea v. Bridgeman, 228 N.C. 565, 46 S.E.2d 555; Smith v. Dav......
-
Sarvis, Matter of
...disqualification for benefits. The question is a matter of first impression in our jurisdiction. But cf., Employment Security Com. v. Jarrell, 231 N.C. 381, 57 S.E.2d 403 (1950) (recognizing under earlier version of G.S. 96-14(5) that abandonment of dispute by employees effected change in c......