Stover v. Deere, 5--5367
| Decision Date | 02 November 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--5367,5--5367 |
| Citation | 249 Ark. 334,461 S.W.2d 393 |
| Parties | Thomas R. STOVER, Acting Commissioner of Labor, Appellant, v. Shirley Jean DEERE et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Herrn Northcutt, Little Rock, for appellant.
McMath, Leatherman, Woods & Youngdahl, and John F. Forster, Jr., Little Rock, for appellees.
This is an unemployment compensation case in which the four appellees, employees of Warwick Electronics, Inc., each filed claims for one week of benefits. The claims were uniformly denied by the local office, the Appeals Tribunal, and the Board of Review, on the ground that the claimants had all received vacation pay for the week in question. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 81--1106(f)(3) (Supp.1969). The circuit court, however, reversed the administrative rulings and ordered that the benefits be paid. The acting Commissioner of Labor brings the case to this court.
The controversy calls for a construction of the statute in the light of the union contract between the employer and the local union to which the appellees belong. That contract empowers the employer to fix a vacation period during the months of June, July, or August, and if it is deemed advisable to shut down the plant during that period. All vacations may be scheduled for that period, except for employees who are required to work during the shutdown. To be eligible for vacation pay an employee must have worked for at least 40 weeks during the preceding work year, measured from May 1st to May 1st. All such eligible employees are divided into three classes: (1) Those having up to two years of service with the company receive as vacation pay 2% of their total wages during the preceding year, with a guaranteed minimum amounting to 40 hours' pay. (2) Those having from two to ten years of service receive 4% with a guaranteed minimum of 80 hours' pay. (3) Those having over ten years of service receive 6% with a guaranteed minimum of 120 hours' pay.
In 1968, the year in question, the employer elected to shut down the plant for two weeks. The four claimants fell within the first class of employees, having less than two years of service with the company. Each one of them received vacation pay that did not actually exceed the guaranteed minimum of 40 hours' pay. Forty hours being the equivalent of one week's work at straight time, the appellees filed claims for unemployment compensation for the second week of the shutdown.
The statute, cited above, provides that a person shall be disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits for any week with respect to which he receives vacation pay. For reversal of the circuit court's judgment the Commissioner argues that under the contract the claimants received vacation pay in a predetermined amount for the entire two-week shutdown. Hence, argues the Commissioner, the claimants all received vacation pay for the two weeks, albeit at a weekly rate amounting to only half of their regular working scale.
We express no opinion about what might be the merits of the Commissioner's argument if the union contract had specifically provided that the annual shutdown should be for exactly two weeks. That was not the case. The contract allowed the employer, within its uncontrolled discretion, to fix a vacation period during the months of June, July, or August, and to shut the plant down during that period. Thus the company might, in 1968 or any other year, have fixed a vacation far in excess...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Iowa Malleable Iron Co. v. Iowa Employment Sec. Commission, 54735
...unemployed. See Code § 96.19(10), par. a, quoted above; Moulton v. Employment Sec. Comm., 239 Iowa 1161, 1170, 34 N.W.2d 211; Stover v. Deere, 461 S.W.2d 393 (Ark.); Geremia v. Administrator, Unemployment Comp. Act, 146 Conn. 264, 150 A.2d 203; Schettino v. Administrator, Unemployment Comp.......
-
Johnson v. Director of Labor, E
...on appeal, but in the present case the issue of repaying benefits has been decided and has not been appealed to us. In Stover v. Deere, 249 Ark. 334, 461 S.W.2d 393 (1971), an unemployment benefit case, the court was unwilling to allow an issue to be raised that should have been decided in ......
-
Davis v. Stiles, 85-156
...a process, however, would lead to the "piecemeal" litigation of claims which we meant to preclude by our holding in Stover v. Deere, 249 Ark. 334, 461 S.W.2d 393 (1970); and would result in claims remaining unsettled for needless periods of time, such as in this case which now spans four In......
-
Hays v. Batesville Mfg. Co., 5--5679
...be made on that issue. Reddick v. Scott, 217 Ark. 38, 228 S.W.2d 1008 (1950). We are not unmindful of our holding in Stover v. Deere, 249 Ark. 334, 461 S.W.2d 393 (1970). There we said we would not remand because proof was allegedly lacking, or a material issue was not raised as to whether ......