Appeal of FairPoint Logistics, Inc. & a.
195 A.3d 825
| N.H. | 2018Background
- FairPoint (telecommunications) implemented new employment terms after bargaining failed; ~650 unionized workers (CWA and IBEW) struck from Oct 17, 2014 to Feb 25, 2015. CWA members received strike pay.
- Striking employees applied for unemployment benefits; NHES certifying officers denied claims under RSA 282-A:36 (disqualification for unemployment due to a "stoppage of work" caused by a labor dispute).
- First appeal tribunal upheld denials, concluding either (a) a "stoppage of work" is established when employees elect to stop working because of a labor dispute, or (b) alternatively, the strike caused a substantial curtailment of FairPoint’s business; it also found some strike pay deductible.
- Claimants sought reopening under RSA 282-A:60; the commissioner reopened, concluding the tribunal erred as a matter of law by treating "stoppage of work" as mere cessation by employees and ordered a de novo rehearing using a "substantial curtailment" standard with additional factors to consider.
- Second appeal tribunal found no stoppage of work (awarded benefits) but held some strike pay deductible; commissioner and appellate board affirmed reopening and the second tribunal’s stoppage finding, while reversing on strike-pay deductions in part.
- Supreme Court reversed the appellate board, holding the first tribunal correctly applied the "substantial curtailment" standard and that the commissioner erred in reopening that decision; reinstated the first tribunal’s stoppage finding and declined to reach the strike-pay issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether commissioner may reopen an appeal-tribunal decision for mistake of law under RSA 282-A:60 | FairPoint: "mistake" in RSA 282-A:60 permits reopening only for mistakes of fact, not law | Commissioner & Appellate Board: statute allows reopening for fraud, mistake (including law), or newly discovered evidence | Court: Commissioner may reopen for mistakes of law or fact; statute contains no limiting language |
| Proper definition of "stoppage of work" under RSA 282-A:36 | FairPoint: does not defend the tribunal's initial view that voluntary cessation alone equals stoppage; urges focus on employer impact | Claimants: stoppage may be established by employees' election to stop work (as first tribunal initially held) | Court: "stoppage of work" means a substantial curtailment of the employer’s operations (adopting majority view) |
| Whether first tribunal erred in finding substantial curtailment of FairPoint’s operations | FairPoint: contends commissioner correctly reopened because tribunal lacked a defined standard and failed to consider factors like revenue comparison | Claimants: tribunal applied appropriate service-industry metrics (service to new customers, repair/backlog metrics, use of management/contractors) | Court: first tribunal applied correct substantial-curtailment standard, considered relevant factors, and its factual finding was supported by substantial evidence; commissioner erred to reopen |
| Whether the appellate board correctly reinstated the second tribunal’s no-stoppage ruling | FairPoint: sought reinstatement of first tribunal; argues reopening and retrial were improper | Claimants: second tribunal's fact-finding supported no substantial curtailment | Court: appellate board erred in affirming reopening and second-tribunal result; reinstated first tribunal re: stoppage and found disqualification applies (no need to decide strike-pay) |
Key Cases Cited
- Legacy v. Clarostat Mfg. Co., 99 N.H. 483 (N.H. 1955) (New Hampshire precedent considered in construing "stoppage of work")
- Lourdes Medical Ctr. v. Board of Review, 963 A.2d 289 (N.J. 2007) (majority view that "stoppage of work" means substantial curtailment of operations)
- Boguszewski v. Comm’r. of Dep’t. of Emp., 572 N.E.2d 554 (Mass. 1991) (fact-specific substantial-curtailment test and factors)
- Whitcomb v. Dept. of Employment & Training, 520 A.2d 602 (Vt. 1986) (upholding substantial-curtailment finding despite no measurable revenue loss)
- General Elec. Co. v. Director of Division of Employment Security, 208 N.E.2d 234 (Mass. 1965) (effect of strike shutting down part of operation relevant to stoppage inquiry)
- Monsanto Chem. Co. v. Comm’r of Labor, 314 S.W.2d 493 (Ark. 1958) (use of production metrics to evaluate continuance of stoppage)