Zura v. Marblehead Stone Division, Standard Slag Corp., 15907

Decision Date10 November 1965
Docket NumberNo. 15907,15907
Citation224 N.E.2d 176,13 Ohio Misc. 317
Parties, 42 O.O.2d 15, 42 O.O.2d 388 William J. ZURA et al., Appellants, v. MARBLEHEAD STONE DIVISION, STANDARD SLAG CORPORATION, and Willard P. Dudley, Administrator, Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, Appellees.
CourtOhio Court of Common Pleas
OPINION

STAHL, Judge.

This matter is before the Court by virtue of an appeal from the Board of Review of the Bureau of Unemployment Compensation. This Board found that the appellants were not entitled to participate in the Unemployment Compensation Fund for the reason that they were idle because of a labor dispute, not a lockout.

The Board found, in substance, that there was no strike but that the company closed their plant after the expiration of the contract of employment because a strike appeared imminent and to leave the plant open would cause an undue financial loss and even create a dangerous situation. The Board found from these facts there was a labor dispute which wasn't a lockout.

The preliminary to this matter in this Court was heard on April 2, 1965. Thereafter, after, briefs were filed. On the 16th day of July, 1965, the Court requested the attorneys to file additional information, namely, the statute laws with annotations thereunder of the other forty-nine states. To date, the same have not been filed by any of the attorneys. The Court, therefore, has been forced to make its independent research.

The Court finds the law to read in forty-three states that employees are not entitled to participate in the unemployment compensation fund if they are idle because of a labor dispute. In six of the states, including Ohio, it provides that they are not entitled to participate in the unemployment compensation fund if they are idle because of a labor dispute, except lockout. I believe in one state it says 'strike' rather han 'lockout'. In the state of Arkansas, which formerly read like Ohio's, 'labor dispute' other than 'lockout'. This entire portion of the statute has been repealed.

Ohio's law reads as follows: May not receive compensation if the employee 'lost his employment or has left his employment by reason of a labor dispute other than a lockout * * *.' Formerly, the law read that no benefits shall be payable to any individual who has lost his employment or has left his employment by reason of a strike in the establishment in which he was employed 'as long as such strike continues.'

In December 23, 1940, in the case of United States Coal Company, Appellants v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Appellee, 66 Ohio App. 329, 32 N.E.2d 763, it was held under the former law that if upon expiration of the contract the employee did not show up for work they were entitled to receive unemployment compensation as there was no strike. Thereafter, the legislature in Ohio Laws, Vol. 119, p. 821, 1941, changed the law to read as it now is.

Therefore, the question is, was there or was there not a lockout in this case?

In the briefs of the parties cases from many states were cited. A few were cited from Ohio, notably Zanesville Rapid Transit, Inc. v. Bailey, 168 Ohio St. 351, 155 N.E.2d 202. This was one of the cases, as were all of the cases cited, where the doors were not locked but where certain actions were taken by the employers which caused the employees to leave their employment. In this case, at page 354, 155 N.E.2d at page 205, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Lee-Norse Co. v. Rutledge
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • 18 Mayo 1982
    ...Co., 20 Conn.Sup. 209, 131 A.2d 211 (1957); Gorecki v. State, 115 N.H. 120, 335 A.2d 647 (1975); Zura v. Marblehead Stone Division, Standard Slag Corporation, 13 Ohio Misc. 317, 42 Ohio Ops.2d 15, 224 N.E.2d 176 (1965); Gladieux Food Services, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Revi......
  • Oriti v. Board of Review, Ohio Bureau of Employment Services, s. 44918
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 31 Marzo 1983
    ...United States Coal Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review (1940), 66 Ohio App. 329, 32 N.E.2d 763 ; Zura v. Standard Slag Corp. (1965), 13 Ohio Misc. 317, 224 N.E.2d 176 In Baker v. Powhatan Mining Co., supra, the court held that a union had engaged in a strike where it refused to a......
  • Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co. v. Public Utilities Commission
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Common Pleas
    • 30 Enero 1967
  • Eastalco Aluminum Co. v. Board of Appeals, Dept. of Employment and Training
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 1 Septiembre 1987
    ...for [the] employer more desirable terms." Black's Law Dictionary 848 (5th Ed.1979); (citing Zura v. Marblehead Stone Division, Standard Slag Corp., 13 Ohio Misc. 317, 224 N.E.2d 176, 178 (1965). A "lockout" is in essence the counterpart of an employee's strike. The focus is on the employer'......
  • 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