*1 1959] Mоrse 103 Wayne County Supervisors. with, appellee agree that we
We do not deal here mere device created to with a evade constitutional (See Metropol Bacon lax limitation v. Kent-Ottawa Authority, 159), itan Water 354 Mich but with a metropolitan accomplish district created to an im public purpose portant then-existing which no other perform. government unit of could may, language Be that we find no in the au- "thorizing approval or in the referendum of act serves to convinceus that the tax to levied he 1/4-mill county portion express- “a tax” either (cid:127)as exempt ly impliedly the 15-mill limit con- § 21. in article 10, tained J., Carr, J., with Ed- concurred
Dethmers, C. J. wards,
PARK v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION.
DORSEY SAME. Compensation Employing ,1. Unemployment — Unit —Establish- Disqualification for Benefits. ment — unit,” “employing employment term as defined in the se- “establishment,” curity act, term not therein defined therein, although synonymous, used are not where the terms '[9,11] '[1] '[8] '[2-4, 6, ’[10] '[12,13] ¡[15] 14 Am [5] [14] tirement Funds Retirement Security, .Unemployment tirement Funds § Unemployment 48 Am 5 Am 50 Am 2 Am Am 7] 5 Am Am 48 Am Jur, Attorneys Jur, Agency Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, Agency References Jur, Attorneys Funds Statutes Costs 21 et Social Social Jur, Insurance, §§ 49. § § 24-27. Social § 36. Security, Unemployment Security, Unemployment Insurance, 31. §§ at Law 67 for Points § at Law Insurance, Security, Unemployment seq. and Retirement et seq.; § §§ and Retirement Funds §46. 48 Am et Headnotes 81. seq.; Funds § Jur, Insurance, 48 Am Social Insurance, 43 et Jur, Security, and Re- Social seq. Re legislature, disqualifying indicate as to are so used benefits, regarded compensation unemployment employee from and more inclusive term and as the broader former term including plants employer out-of-State of an the latter as *2 functionally 1952, integrated (CLS plants are even when [1]). 421.29 § Functionally Disqualification at for Benefits —Strike 2. Same — Integrated Plant. Out-of-State in out of work Employees plant at this State who were because by produced plant, owned рarts at struck same of lack of State, plant in in employer but located which latter another by progress strike in that was called the same there was a represented employees, union claimant were international by dispute reason disqualified from benefits of such labor plant, the term “establishment” not embrac- in the out-of-State ing plant employer though an out-of-State even func- 1952, tionally integrated (CLS [1]). §421.29 Disqualification Benefits —Establishment. 3. fob Same — “establishment,” provision employment in term as used of The security disqualification unemployment for act relative bene- dispute of labor in establishment in fits “because a which he is employed” physical or was last has reference to a distinct business, single (CLS 1952, place employment of unit of [1]). 421.29 § Disqualification for Benefits —Establishment. 4. Same — integrality, general unity functional nor Neither the test of applied interpret- in physical proximity should be the sole test “establishment,” ing employment security the term in act unemployment compensation providing that a claimant for disqualified dispute if would be lack of work were due to labor Chrysler Corp. in employed, overruling which he is or was last Smith, (CLS 1952, 421.29[1]). in part 297 Mich § Appeal Weight Findings 5. Same — of of Evidence. Board —Great by findings Supreme fact of the Court is bound commission, security if appeal employment board of the findings by great weight supported of the evidence (CLS 1956, 421.38). § Employer’s Disqualification at for Benefits —Strike 6. Same — Plant. Out-of-State arising unemployment compensation from A claimant for benefits stoppage plant disqualified in from work at this State was not receiving benefits, dispute labor at such where there was no 1959] directly place employment and claimants were not involved employer’s dispute plant
in labor out-of-State struck func- tionally plаnt integrated with in which employed claimants were necessary parts operations for claimant’s were not forth- coming plant (CLS other 421.29[1]). § Disqualification for Benefits —Direct 7. Interest Same — Employer. Plant Out-of-State Strike Same finding Michigan plant A direct interest of claimants in plant dispute employer, labor out-of-State of the same by weight supported great evidence, if not, even does alone, standing disqualify unemployment claimants from bene- directly being fits, involved, employed since were not claimants than different establishment where labor was in progress (CLS 1952, 421.29[1]). § Appearance op Attorney Appeals. Same — for Claimants — Appeals presented attorney unemployment for claimants held, compensation valid, where claims were initiated being attorney, unnecessary that there be written authoriza- (CL 1948, AC, tion §421.31; 421.412). of counsel §B Attorney. S. Same —Union—Power *3 designation Union member’s irrevocable of union as member’s agent purposes representing exclusive for of member in the presentation, prosecution, adjustment and of settlement all grievances, complaints disputes arising of kind out of held, employer-employee relationship general power not a authorizing attorney represent of employee pro- union to ceeding unemployment compensation (CL to recover 1948 and seq.). , 421.1 et CLS § Principal Agent Attorney. and of 10. —Construction Power of attorney, specifically designated, Powers of even when so are strictly enlarged by construed cannot be construction. Unemployment Compensation Attorney 11. — and Client. unemployment compensation represented Claimants for can be by attorney (CL 1948, 421.31; AC, 421.412). B § § Attorney Appearance—Presumptions. and Client — authorized, presumption attorney A properly arises that an was appearance party. when he enters an in behalf of a Attorney Unemploy- 23. Same —Ethics—Union —Claimants for Compensation. ment attorney ap- Whether it a union to file or not was ethical for pearances 11,000 unemploy-1 on behalf of some for claimants [Jan, ranging $105, $27 compensation benefits from ment employment security com- resolved, appears it where of authorization on the attor- indulged presumption a mission practical- of ney’s appearance because for claimant problem. Legislative of Silence— Statutes — 14. Courts —Construction Overruling Cases. previous may properly error has made as correct a A court ease, by overruling earlier interpretation of statute during legislature notwithstanding has remained silent the interim. Compensation. Unemployment 15. Costs —Public Question — 11,000 by claimants- proceedings some No costs allowed public question benefits, unemployment compensation where n [1]). (CLS 421.29 ease involved in determination of § Dethmers, J., Carr, J., dissenting. C. Wayne; (John V.), Appeal Sub- J. Brennan (Docket April 18,1958. 43, 44, mitted Nos. Calendar January 47,124.) Re- 12,1959. Nos. Decided 47,065, Appeal February hearing dismissed 19,1959. denied by Supreme 8,1959. June Court of the United States employees of Ford Mo- Alexander other compen- Company unemployment tor filed claims for layoff labor sation benefits necessitated because company’s stoppage out-of-state and work Dorsey plant. an- Similar claims for John L. employees group other filed in their behalf Attorney attorney. labor union Cases consolidated. people on General intervened behalf public policy. State for reasons Dorsey’s right representation Recognizing over objections Appeal prоcedural Board nature, Employment Security com- denied Commission pensation cases. both upheld denying
On circuit court order certiorari, compensation, question procedural *4 held in Dor- and sey Attorney ap- moot. Intervenor General case peals Dorsey appeals. Park case. Plaintiff unemployment grant compensation
Reversed to in both cases. benefits
1959] Zwerdling, Zwerdling Zwerdling (A. of coun- & L. sel), plaintiffs. for Attorney Tori- Adams, General, Samuel J. L.
Paul Faville, Stanton As- na, General, S. Chief Solicitor Attorney Clement, Florence N. General, and sistant Attorney Attorney General, for intervenor Assistant General. Bourgon, Attorney George General, Assistant M. Employment Security Commission. for defendant (Richard Darragh, Joseph T. B. William Gossett O’Reilly counsel), Fellrath, Richard A. for A. Company. Motor defendant Ford Amici Curiae: Cooper Beaumont, Harris, E.
Frank Smith & Michigan Employers’ Unemployment Compen- for Michigan sation Bureau and Manufacturers’ Asso- ciation. Wright, Tindall, Jr., Daniel J.
Edward P. Wright, (Dickinson, Wellington Davis, M. Watters Kelley, Cudlip Drye, Newhall & McKean & Maginnes, counsel), Chrysler Corporation. for great cases are of financial im- Edwards, J. These portance litigants. re- after a careful Yet, to the printed pages of records and 1,600 view briefs, over upon they the answer turn we conclude simple relatively legal question the term to a —Does employ- “the as used in the establishment,” security encompass plants Ford act, ment both forge Michigan, vicinity and the Ford Detroit, plant Ohio, reason the former Canton, operate long without latter? cannot very question means new. In no similar judicial previously to the been submitted form, has systems of which at the time each had States, *5 [Jan-
statutory of language import like to that of our State to construe.
The appellate courts in Massachusetts, New Jer- sey, Minnesota, Kentucky, New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvаnia answered the question in the negative. Georgia’s supreme court alone answered affirmative- ly. In the ninth State, Texas, where compensation claims were allowed under a similar situation and somewhat similar statutory language, present defendant stipulated to dismissal of its appeal— perhaps anticipation of a legislative amendment favorable to its position, which did indeed follow.
For reasons we detail we hereafter, arrive- at the same conclusion reached by great major- of ity the courts which have considered problem- Although, as we will much note, more between these parties, in the end this decides principal question in these cases.
We have before 2us cases involving separate- groups unemployment claimants of compensation, totaling approximately 11,000 such claims in all. The- cases,* claimants in these were em May at ployed plants the Ford Motor Company vicinity Detroit, The 3 in Michigan. plants volved were the Mound Road plant, the Highland plant, the Ford Rouge at Dearborn. plant who employees claimants these appeals were laid off the 3 plants just to as referred a result of failure of forgings, essential to the their operation of particular departments, to arrive at the plant concerned as a result of the stoppage manufacture such at the forgings forge Canton plant due to strike called by the UAW-CIO on at April 20,1953, the Canton plant.
591). eases under terms of the [*] All claims were consolidated for statute, CL hearing § 608.1 (Stat appeal Ann these in § 27.- 1959] Park
In the record which lengthy contains much hotly- disputed facts to be clear and testimony, appear beyond dispute: (1) employees concerned were laid off either as direct or indirect result of the failure of forgings previously manufactured the Canton to arrive at forge plant departments or *6 where would plants they customarily be incorporated products; into subassemblies and of assemblies Ford that no (2) call, strike vote, walkout, or picketing in the occurred under plants consideration,, and all that employees concerned continued work until laid off by the company (indeed some of them returned to work on call the of the- during period union, Canton forge plant strike), and that other employees, whose operations were not affected the by lack of forgings, in continued work each the 3 plants most or all through of the entire Canton strike period.
The Ford Motor is a Company Delaware corpora- tion, with its and principal office principal manufac- turing plants located in Michigan. It has extensive- assembly manufacturing plants in many other States, and this record indicates that all of the plants integrated operation with its Michigan plants. The union with which we are concerned these- cases the International Union, UAW-CIO which, period during was the question, exclusive col- lective agent of bargaining all of the hourly-produc- tion and maintenance employees of the Ford Motor- Company all of its plants throughout the United- States. The contract between the UAW workers and the Ford Motor Company was for a 5-year period' expiring June 1, 1955.
It appears that during of 1953 spring the local- disputes which resulted in the Canton forge plant strike occurred, and ultimately were resolved, at the modifica-,- same time as a union-company dispute over tion of the so-called master agreement. The briefs argue the Canton these cases
(cid:127)of claimants purely issues, local forge plant ovеr was strike reopening negotiations unrelated was modification agreement. com- It is the of the master forge plant strike pany’s position Canton purpose employed the union for a device agreement. forcing master of the modification appears that the settlement event, it In either of the forge plant and the modification strike, Canton May agreement, 25, 1953, on both occurred master following by days na- of a modification similar agreement the General between UAW tional May signed Corporation on Motors respective parties thus were The claims respective phrased by agreement counsel, judge circuit court who heard certification this accompanying proceedings and facts in the statement of matter, application appeal for leave to ad- dressed to Court: they off contend that were laid “The claimants *7 being involuntarily work, unem- a lack of
due to way dispute; ployed that involved in a labor in no and dispute not occur a did in the establish- labor they employed; that the Michi- in were ment which gan of within either the definition not include act does plant employing unit the Ohio establishment Company, purposes whether for of Ford Motor of regardless disqualification; that, taxation or of disqualification any claimants no other there can be factor, the fundamental because this case 29(1) disqualification prerequisite under section dispute (b) in the of a labor estab- is the existence employed, he last and lishment in which is or was not include within that the its here does establishment scope plant in which the in another State dispute occurred; that modification of labor agreement Ford Motor between the Com- national pany by May 25,1953, was occasioned UAW, and agreement the nationаl be- modification of similar Ill Park 1959] Corporation days and Motors tween UAW General 1953), unemployment (May that the 22, and earlier by way in no occasioned of claimants was opening this re- of the Ford contract conform with the- by Motors; action taken General and that the labor plant dispute in Canton, Ohio, was over issues involving involve were plant any only, way that and did not a in which these claimants directly involved event. employer, “The on the that hand, other contends disqualification of the claimants does involve application Michigan employ- extraterritorial security plant act; ment and Canton is- part meaning a of of the Ford establishment within the 29(1) (b) act; section close there was integration synchronization functional the Canton and between plant and other units, its automotive manu- facturing assembly departments and plants in the Detroit elsewhere; area that its plants depended upon in the Detroit area a continu- produced parts ous flow of and material at the Can- plant product, namely, ton cars, manufacture its September, trucks, tractors; that in just years ing agreement until 5-year bargain- signing after collective openable its terms was not the International Union, UAW, enunciat- ‘Living theory its ed so-called Document’ bargaining agent employees- exclusive collective all agreement covered such master or in- national cluding these claimants, demanded substantial changes agreement; support in such master upon these demands the union embarked a course of early conduct, from the fall of 1952 to the time of' the settlement of the strike, Canton directed toward bringing adjustments pensions, about more liberal living retiring the cost of vacations for allowances, employees, wages aрpli- increased and other matters agreement cable under the master to all Ford UAW *8 including members claimants; these that the Canton part program strike of broad of harassment company part of the on the of the union and was used Michigan Reports.
as a concessions from the pry company lever with to the master respect agreement; the issues the became dispute inseparably Canton intertwined master controversy with the over contract changes; that the brought the dispute agreement over master changes strike, about the or at least Canton the very it to the where prolonged point the employer’s plants in the Detroit area and elsewhere were shut down with the resultant unemployment claimants; of the directly claimants were the involved dis- pute and shared in the substantial benefits gained for them in the dispute settlement; that owing to the functional integration between the and the plants n strike occurred the Canton became plant, Detroit necessary close the area plants, causing the unemployment of the claimants, and that Ford, 1 establishment, the being claimants direct- being ly involved in labor they were dispute, properly disqualified receiving under pertinent benefits provisions (section n [1] [b], labor subsections [2] provision of the act [4]).” subject appeal Two cases the claim In .ants to this Court. Park v. Employment Security No. Commission, 280,754, 5,500* Case approximately were claimants denied unemployment compensation by the Michigan employment security commission and, on appeal referee, found their claims n deniedthere likewise. On to the subsequent appeal .appeal board, referee’s decision was affirmed by .a divided with board, the majority its opinion resting “that all of upon the units holding Ford Motor both in Company, Ohio, con stituted establishment within the of that meaning contained in the Michigan word as act.” On appeal Wayne county circuit court, the :to circuit judge heard the case found who this issue to be the “piv- * A certain filed in number claims both eases were otherwise disposed of. *9 1959] Park Security finding otal” affirming one, this entered the majority appeal decision of the of the board: may “That this issue be determined at this level finality, opinion with the the court is of finds, and so Michigan term ‘establishment’ as used the employment security act is not confined to the State Michigan; specifically, lines of cases that, more comprehends the term ‘establishment’ bar, Michigan plants, supra, the the where claimants were employed forge plant and the Canton, where Ohio, compelling stoppage the strike the of work at the Michigan plants, occurred.” pertaining In the Park case, is no there issue validity appeals. of the Dorsey Employment
The second ease is entitled 280, 866. No. This Commission, Case case approximately consists of 5,500 claims wherein the appeals except claimants did not take as themselves, representation through will be noted later coun sel the no author union, where written and/or representation appeal appear izations for either (similarly in the record. All of the de same issues below) just cided have as been recited relation to Dorsey the Park case exist the In addition, case. hearing at the however, before the the de referee, appellee objected Company fendant and Ford Motor group ground to this the claims on that no valid appeal up had been taken. In his decision, referee objection. appeal appeal held On to the board of Michigan employment security commission, appeal unanimously appeals board held that the in Dorsey ground volved case were valid on the designated agent that the union was of these em ployees and, in the union constitution hence, had the right employ prosecut counsel on their behalf in ing appeals, ground and on the further recognized appearance by commission where, counsel appear as a member of the he entered bar, their actions concerned, anees for individuals ratified appearance.
In the case to the circuit appeal Dorsey court, the circuit entered judge, previously having which in- ruling question on “establishment” cases, validated all claims in held that both moot. validity-of-appeals issue was The issue is *10 for in preserved review aby appeal this Court cross this issue taken upon alone, by the Ford Motor Company. in this case,
The issues as we see them and shall them, decide follows: 1. matter As a integra- does functional law, of a company’s tion in plants located manufacturing several other Michigan and States make them a single “establishment” within the meaning of the security act? employment
2. if do effect, any, What 1, 2, subsections 4 of 29(1) section (b) Michigan employment act have security upon disqualification of a claimant for unemployment in compensation the event it is found that unemployment his is not due “to stop- of work page because aof labor existing dispute establishment which or he is was last em- ? ployed” Under facts revealed by this record, are the
appeals advanced in the case entitled Dorsey v. Em- ployment Security Commission valid appeals?
The basic section to which we must turn for an- to the swers first questions thеse is 29(1) section of the Michigan employment security act (CDS 1952, 421.29, § subd Ann [1] [Stat 1953 Cum Supp 17.531, § (1)]): subd “An individual shall be disqualified benefits:
# * *
“ For (b) week with any respect to which total his or to a partial is due unemployment stoppage dispute work because of a labor in the existing estab- 1959] Park employed: he lisliment which is or last was Pro- disquali- however, That no
vided, individual shall be fied under this if section he shall establish that he is directly dispute. pur- not involved in such For pose of section, no individuals shall deemed directly dispute to be is established: involved a labor unless it “(1) That, at the time or in the course a labor dispute in the establishment in which he was then employed, shall in he concert with 1 or more other employees voluntarily stopped working have other employing than at the direction of his unit, or “(2) financing he participating That in or or directly dispute interested labor which caused stoppage of work: Provided, however, That payment regular union dues shall be construed financing meaning as this a labor within the subsection, “(3) being That at time, there no labor dis- pute department in the establishment or he employed voluntarily stopped he shall have working, employing other than at the direction of his sympathy employees unit, in with in some other es- *11 department dispute tablishment or in which labor progress, then in was or “ (4) any being dispute time, That at there no labor particular department in the or unit in he which employed, dispute being was then there or no labor among grade or class of within the workers em- ploying come his grade belongs, to unit which he shall have he be- unemployed stoppage because of a in work particular department among or or belongs, unit, or class workers to which he which stoppage of work is due to a labor which was department progress in in or is somе other or unit among grade or a different or class of workers of employing he the same unit whom then em- ployed.” J an. [ “establishment” follows: defines
Webster "d. one fixed where place permanently business; or residence, including- grounds, residence et retinue, cetera, with one furniture, equipage, also, business, institution or out; place is fitted staff; as, large with estab organized its fixtures establishment.” Web lishment; ster’s New International manufacturing a Dictionary (2d ed), p can do Judges lawyers frequently astonishing layman with No would venture to words. things “establishment,” used word single suggest could usage in normal paragraph above, Rouge Dearborn, the Ford plant both applied Canton, Ohio. forge plant Ford Michigan, and the without layman, also that no The writer believes mind, statutory would read the motive specific to the conclusion quoted above come provisions in its such inclusiveness legislature any had statute car- intended use word. Although “establishment,” its within no definition of ries clearly of the term our such as is, opinion, use interpretaton sought by appellees. rule out the broad unit” “employing the term Thus, statute defines seek to apply in the same broad which appellees sense to “establishment”:
“ or type individual any unit’ means ‘Employing associa- any including partnership, of organization, insurance tion, trust, estate, joint-stock company, for- or whether domestic company corporation, 1950 Rev 421.40 Ann (Stat CL § eign.” 17.542). § the same definition sentence of
And, the second of the word “establish- use it makes such paragraph, preclude attempt view, as, ment” in our all integrated plants terms definition in *12 located: wherever company, 1959] performing within this services “All individuals any employing unit which maintains State separate shall establishments within this State
more be employing employed single unit deemed to be purposes of act.” for all the Company’s appellee Ford Motor since Indeed, plants integrated premise that all of basic its plants, appears appellee Michigan with its interpretation the word “establishment” seeks synonymous “employing
with unit” de- the term as fined in the statute. very disqualification
Yet, in the section itself prefatory quoted, we have sentence and 1, 2 and subsections we find terms uses “employing clearly unit” and “establishment” which legislature regard indicate that the did not them synonymous, regard and did the former as the broad- er and more inclusive term. dictionary,
While the the statute, and common argue urged all sense otherwise, we are that this Chrysler Corp. (135 Court, in Smith, Mich 900), ALB require so defined “establishment” toas holding, our judge appeal as did the circuit and the plants board, that the Ford Detroit area forge and the plant Ford Canton in Ohio were all 1 “establishment.” might
It be noted at the outset that no such factual Chrysler situation Corp. was involved in v. Smith plants as confronts us here. The there involved community were all in 1 industrial Detroit —the they area; were all located within 11 of one miles they another; were all located in the State of Michigan. disqualification argu- We deal here with a applicable ment nonstriking employees in 3 De- plants, troit Michigan, area all where the strike inducing unemployment occurred in another com- munity away, 150miles and in another State. *13 Michigan
118 tying difficulty definition of the to be faced The primary the act, in the “establishment,” as used by functioning, the integrated foreseen was test of judge (now heard Carr) who Mr. Justice circuit Corp. Chrysler court level: at the trial v. Smith Case legislature “Undoubtedly of in the enactment enter- that there are numerous had mind this law prises Michigan plaintiff, maintain that, like operations plants are conduсted. in which different plaintiff, by for the it counsel If, as contended the manu- all of intended to embrace within facturing properties term employer think we must an I of indicating language appropriate such that assume of is matter used. It intention would have been large knowledge, many that business also, common enterprises plants as well maintain in other States plants operations are of such as in and the ‘establishment’ more less correlated. If term or interpretation given if for, contended is the broad properties manufacturing of it all of means employer, are at least those that to some extent integrated, functionally quite conceivable that is partly might have an within and we partly establishment Michigan. However, without the State suggest nothing in the that the there is statute legislature had such situation in mind coun- 2) possibilities.” (pt sel have discussed its Michigan Supreme Records Term, Oct Court pp (Chrysler Corp. Briefs, Smith, 438). Mich vigorous by dissent recorded Justices Mc- and Bushnell did likewise: Allister integrated plants contention is “No made integrated or State, different owners same corporation plants operating owned the same un- integrated plants der the of different States, laws em- in the ployees different same State or States bargaining represented different agents, 1 establishment within should be considered 1959] meaning the act. The conclusion, therefore, provisions inevitable the act would seem contemplate way integration plants in no statutory interpretation criterion for the sole the word ‘establishment’—and that several inte- plants grated are 1 establishment while several un- plants
integrated are several establishments.” *14 supra, Chrysler Corp. pp Smith, opinion by authored This same Justice McAllis analysis provided likewise a of definitive the dis ter Michigan the tinctions between and that statute оf by which was construed the Wisconsin Wisconsin by supreme emphasized ap eourt in another case Spielmann pellee brief, Ford Motor’s v. Industrial 1).* (295 Commission, 236 Wis 240 NW * argument ease, the supreme “Since of this the of eourt Wisconsin pass upon meaning has hacl occasion the of the term ‘establishment' unemployment compensation State, as used appellant the act of that and Chrysler Corporation thereupon cites the decision as au- thority Spielmann for its contention before us. v. Industrial Com- mission, (295 1). 236 Wis 240 NW The cited case involved claims unemployment compensation arising for stoppage of out a of work plants in the the Corporation. of the Nash-Kelvinator A strike caused closing plant of 1 stoppage which resulted in of work and plaintiff’s unemployment plant away. in another 40 question miles The to be decided dispute plant was whether the labor in the first awas labor progress active in the plaintiff establishment employed. was plants The eourt concluded that the 2 constituted single a meaning establishment within the of the Wisconsin statute. considering “In ease, the significant Wisconsin we it deem that eourt, in construing the ‘establishment,' the particularly term em- phasized that, arriving at its determination meaning of the of word, pui'pose that the considered, statute be must and that the statute must be construed to purpose, discoverable, effect that if if such possible. a construction were pointed eourt then out that it employer the upon was whom the placed burden was accumulate the fund out of paid, which benefits were to be and that company was the required who was fund; to accumulate the employer encouraged by was the steady employment. act to furnish It emphasized was further that purpose these of declarations pointed to the construction by reached plants the eourt that the 2 con- single stituted a Moreover, establishment. the eourt observed that the fact employee that the was not himself at fault for loss his of employment, cause, was statute, sole under the suspension benefits; of provided that the law employee that such an was not eligible in case the loss employment God, was caused act of fire, or catastrophe, other military authority act civil or affect- ing place employment. The court its concluded discussion Michigan 355 re- case even more
Factually, the Wisconsin our facts since the there present plants mote from within the meaning 1 “establishment” held were both in same State statute the Wisconsin apart, were both under 1 general miles though on 1 operated production were manager, works maintained trucks scheduled between schedule a synchronized with deliveries so body plants meet the for order Milwaukee would chassis built on assembly for the same order built at Kenosha without intermediate line, storage. con- hand, the record cases other
On the for all concerned plants indicates herewith sidered plant managements and distinct entirely separate schedules, as well as separate plant production meaning by stating that of the word ‘establish- question of this aet, ‘rather than from the whole from so drawn to be ment’ was insignificant single proposition.’ thing statutes are the Wisconsin statute between differences “The policy, there is no declaration In the Wisconsin obvious. as serves unemployment of funds for re- law, accumulation in our unemployed through persons the benefit be used for should consequences own, of relief in order to limit their fault of no *15 connection, case, in observed court, the the cited In this assistance. employment compensation for loss of was many instances in that law, although unemployment the resulted the Wisconsin denied under beyond power his employee the the loss is fault of ‘from no in Furthermore, law sets forth its declara- the Wisconsin prevent.’ employer compensation for his should finance policy that each tion of employer’s contribution should and that each unemployed workers own reserves, unemployment The under the vary Wisconsin to costs. own with his employer law, private funds of each in the nature of unemployed The State acts as a trustee. workers. be used for his up of general pooling, made various contribu- Michigan fund is a The workers, in unemployed whether the tions, all for the benefit of plant. employer making another plant the contribution of the involuntary against policy provide public is to declares its Our State law; unemployment. provision in the Wisconsin no similar There is payment under the for the of benefits is not the criterion and that policy, the regard With to declarations of that State. statute against expressed policy of not militate decision does Wisconsin the law of Michigan jurisdiction. give To the construction to the negation by appellant of the for is a which is contended statute circumstances, and policy legislature. Under these of our declared because of the differences in to policy objects of authority and declarations statutes, the Wisconsin case as we do consider dissent, controversy.” instant followed McAllister Chrysler Smith, Corp. supra, 464-466. v. 1959] Park v. Employment employment
and distinct industrial relations and employee seniority offices, lists, unions, local labor-management agreements. loсal precedents "Wenow turn our attention to wbicb directly unemployment compensation deal with cases argued plant where one State integrated plant has been strike in a disqualifies those laid off result in an as company in the same another State. plant Rouge
In 1949,a strike occurred in the Ford Michigan. eventually in to The effect of that was strike
paralyze production in a number of considerable assembly plants Ford located in various States. The sought unemployment workers thus pensation off laid com- quite under benefits statutes similar (though identical) in no case own. In our these pending cases, there were national too, on the same union and the issues bargaining table between company company
same are here involved, arguments disqualification employees- for of the claimants were Rouge plant on based the contention that really carrying
strike argument forward industrial the benefit oí Georgia Ford union members in New York, only widely to mention California, the most scattered plants. unemployment cases referred arose (most plants claims filed workers at Ford of them assembly plants) Hapeville, (see Georgia Ford [62 Motor Abercrombie, Co. v. 207 Ga 464 SE2d 209]); Kentucky (see Motor Louisville, Co. Ford v. Kentucky Unemployment Compensation Commission 657); [Ky], 243 SW2d Massachusetts Somerville, (see Ford Motor Co. Director the Division Security, 859]); [96 326Mass 757 NE2d (see Nordling Paul, Minnesota St. Ford Motor *16 272]); [42 231 Minn NW2d 28 Co., 576, ALR2d (see Edgewater, Jersey Metuchen and New Ford Department Jersey New Labor & Motor v.Co. 256]); Industry, [76 Buffalo and Green 5 NJ 494 A2d (see v. Motor Island, 277 Co., New York Machcinski Ford [102 App Chester, Div 634 208]; NYS2d Pennsylvania (see Unemployment Ford Motor Co. Compensation Super [79 Board, A2d 168 Pa 121]); (see Texas Motor v. Texas Dallas, Ford Co. Unemployment Commission, 7 CCH 46,744); Rep, par p Vir Norfоlk, Insurance (see ginia Unemployment Ford Motor Com Co. 28]). pensation [63 Commission, 191Va 812 SE2d compensation previously was noted, As we have rejection allowed 8 of these cases after in Company integration argument that Ford Motor plants far-flung rendered the individual 1 establish- Rouge plant ment Michi- with the Ford Dearborn, exception Georgia gan. The where case, was Georgia supreme rejected the tion of court liberal construc- unemployment compensation flat- act and by ly finality unhampered with a con- stated excess logic: cern for fine definition or Hapeville plant, “We therefore hold that the employed, which the claimants were and the Dear- plant, parts-producing where oc- born the strike compelled of work at the curred and which cessation inseparable Hapeville plant, indispensable were ‘factory, parts establishment, or of 1 and the same by premises’ contemplated as (cid:127)other as those terms employed being the act construed.” Ford now Abercrombie, 207 Ga Motor v.Co. no that a fact there also found That court any causing the strike
participation of, in, nor they the ac- were bound but claimants, the tions author- union officers international of their prin- theory plant Rotige izing cipal strike on sug- holding would, course, agent. This any employer plant any gest strike *17 1959] 123 any disqualify unemployment would for State com- any employee pensation plant, benefits other whether in the same or not, State whether owned employer provided or not, the same he was unem- ployed a result of as that strike and the strike was by the union. called same no warrant for
We find such conclusions Michigan statute.
The balance of the followed courts definition very the word “establishment” we held: similar to that which Jersey supreme to. have referred The New court integration’ “The of ‘functional standard not to is legislative expression. statutory be found The of the term sense ‘establishment’ not embracive of is enterprise far-flung single the industrial whole Ford’s as a physi- It unit. reference to a has distinct place usage cal of business. Such is its normal government. Phillips, and in Inc., business A. H. Walling (1945), (65 324 L US S Ct ed 876). 1095, 157 ALR ‘Establishment’ defined is as ‘place permanently where one is fixed resi- place business’; dence also, ‘an institution or Dictionary business.’ Webster’s New International (2d ed), p Jersey 874.” Ford Motor Co. v. New Department Industry, Labor & NJ Virginia supreme reasoning with court, we sound, consider held: unemployment compensation “The act was intend- provide temporary ed to financial assistance to work- unemployed
men who became without fault on their part. partic- The statute as a whole, as well as interpreted ular here sections involved, should be so purpose implicit to effectuate that remedial in its purpose kept enactment. its When we view, agree managerial operational cannot gration inte- cooperation upon and functional the official upon employ- the chief level are to be factors Michigan Reports. employees’ rights ment status and are to be deter- problem analysis, mined. is, Our in the final to rec- ognize purpose the remedial aim and of the act and interpret language apply then and construe the proved. doing it to the think facts In this, we do not obligations that brought contract the contractual and relations through about execution of the master labor may Ford Motor Co. UAW-CIO determining considered as folk whether or not the Nor- plant Rouge plant and the *18 constitute are and meaning establishment within the of the stаtute. plants Those separate either constitute 1 establishment or regardless of establishments whether the master labor contract is or is not in force. The cir- employment, cumstances management ance in rather than those of operation, primary import- and are of determining unity integration, and unity integration, plants. the lack of and weight accumulative and effect of these circum- we stances, think, sufficient to show assembly plant separate Rouge Norfolk from the plant. No labor or strike was fomented or participated the local union which claim- employees belong, ant there nor was labor dis- pute premises, plant, on the at the or in the establish- they employed. actually ment where were The labor dispute and resultant strike were fact in real- ity at and Dearborn. The most that can be said management operation is and of the vast far-flung industry integrated Ford Motor is so synchronized that a serious strike at its head- quarters principal plants and in its at Dearborn must industry in time affect the entire and cause the shut plants down of and other wherever establishments dependence plants .situated. The of 1 or more in this great industry upon principal the home office and manufacturing establishment not, does however, industry necessarily plant make of the entire or 1 Unemployment establishment.” Ford Motor Co. v. Compensation Commission, 191 Va 824, 825. 1959]
In a number of the cases we to, have referred “factory, act construed referred to establishment or premises,” as was draft version of other the model statute.* true arising
In the case from the assembly Paul, Minnesota, shutdown the St. plant, employed the word “establishment” was alone accompanying after amendment had deleted the “factory” premises” words short, and “оther —in prevails present same situation as relation to our statute. very very
In a similar fact situation with similar statutory provision to construe, Minnesota court following analysis set forth the of the “establish- problem ment” improve: on which we do not we think can distinguish “Rather differing than the cases on prefer place facts, we decision on the broader ground that we believe test of functional integrality, general unity, physical proximity adopted should not be as an test absolute in all cases type. No doubt, these factors are elements that should be taken into consideration in determin- ing question factory, plant, the ultimate of whether a *19 industry larger separate a or unit of is a establish- meaning employment ment within the of our and se- curity law. there are However, other factors which difficulty must be also taken into consideration. The attempting use, with to as an absolute test, the fac- Spielmann in tors application down the laid Case comes in its particular Many the a facts case. enterprises integrality have functional between fac- separately tories which are owned. Some are so integrated part having with units or factories ownership part plants same with factories or independently which are owned. That is situa- have in the instant tion which we case. Out of some ed States Social [*] 1937), Draft Bills pp 20, 22, State Board. published Unemployment Washington, (1936), §5, D. pp C., 9, by [10] United (Rev 355 Rouge parts, come from about 900 4,000 or 3,800 by plants
plant. owned from other come Some Company, others come from and still Motor Ford independently plants a strike or A caused owned. shutdown independ- at 1 of such other labor conceivably might at cause shutdown vendors ent actually happen plant. This did Paul Ford the St. Hayes Kelsey at the occurred 1945, when strike plant. that not uncommon assume it is We represent the em- international union would same independent plants ployees or factories of several independ- plant operating ent with that the Ford does its anyone would vendors, we do not believe but plant independent of such that a strike contend plant disqualify employees of the Ford vendor would of the lack if it was down on account forced shut independent parts vendor. furnished such equally unsatisfactory. “Proximity In order to is apply short what factor, distance shall be considered enough proximity? Shall the St. constitute enough plant to the Paul branch Rouge plant the Ford be close Georgia Angeles plants, or Los and the away, operating manner, in a similar far be too plants anywhere any 2 in the United States shall be enough? near unity general of itself a test. “Nor is Our statutes recognize employing may unit that same main separate within the tain or more establishments might argued It 268.04 subd 9.* Section State. separate legislature that had in mind establish any way, legis not related but the ments which are lature did state, not we not it can so do believe Phillips, Inc., the statute. In H. be read into A. (65 Walling, Ct 89 L ed US S 876), general unity, ALR there was but did prevent was holding the warehouse court separate part from the retail establishment of the business. standing alone “If, then, suffice, these tests do not all them which a combination of makes them
* Minnesota Statutes. — Reportee.
1959] Park Employment lacking, If 1 is the sufficient, sufficient? others they must all concur? the or We believe better rule together facts, be factors, that these with other determining
must be taken into consideration in
whether the unit under consideration is in fact a
separate
standpoint
the
establishment
em-
ployment. The
Paul
of the
St.
branch
Ford Motor
Company
highly integrated
with other
units
company
purposes
management
for
of efficient
operation,
separate
but is
the em-
employ-
insofar as
ployees
purpose
are concerned for the
employees
discharged by
ment. The
are hired and
manager. They
the St. Paul
are members of a local
union which
connection with the
has no
locals at
the
except
Dearborn,
that all
locals are members
many
same international, as are
others not con-
Company.
seniority
nected with the Ford Motor
rights
only
employees
operations
extend
at
plant.
showing
the St. Paul
No
made,
has been
nor
employee
we
do
believe that
can
that an
made,
‘bump’
employee
at the
the
plant,
Payment
Paul
St.
branch can
at
Rouge plant,
Angeles plant,
Georgia
the Los
anywhere
plant.
else than at the
Paul
St.
unemployment compensa-
to the Minnesota
only
employees
fund
tion
is made
at the St. Paul
plant,
obviously,
only
and,
benefits can be drawn
by employees Paul branch
the St.
from Minne-
sota fund.
under the act relates to
performed
services
within the State or localized
here.
nothing
The members
Local
had
calling
Rouge plant
do with
strike
at the
nothing
could do
to avert it. While the record does
so show,
we assume that under our act the con-
employer
experi-
tribution rate of the
is based on the
employees
ence ratio of
within
State
without
any regard
experience
to in other States.
5(d)
proposed by
“Under section
of the act
security
original
social
board and under our
act, employment
unit of
within which the labor
disqualify
designated
must exist in order to
‘factory,
premises
or other
establishment,
*21
Michigan Reports.
which,
employed.’ (Italics supplied.)
or
he is was last
1(6),
present
268.09subd
act,
Under our
section
*
dispute
progress
must be in
‘at the
strike
labor
employed.’
he is or
in which
was
establishment
(Italics supplied.)
change
that the
It is doubtful
enlarge
terminology
in
the unit of
intended to
or diminish
was
affecting
disqualification.
employment
‘factory,
It
ment or other
held that
has been
the words
establish
premises’
in the Alaska
which is
act,
ejusdem generis
act,
similar to the Federal
were
principle
applies.
of noscitur a sociis
Ara
Compensation
gon Unemployment
v.
Commission of
(CCA),
A
laska
F2d
original
to believe that
“We
inclined
in our
act the word ‘establishment’ was intended to include
places
employment
those
which could not be
factory;
that
classified as
legislature
was inclusive
in the
amendment
that
concluded
the term ‘establishment’
factory
types
and all other
of em
ployer units;
that
there
no further
to
was
need
‘factory.’
use
word
For a discussion of the dis
factory
tinction between
and establishment, see Gen
Corporation Mulquin,
eral Motors
v.
While were in the right terming of the judge interpretation word “pivotal “establishment” the of this issue” case, we in they believe were the wrong extending definition “the of establishment” Chrys employed Smith, supra. Corp. ler Indeed, on the basis of said, what has been we feel constrained to hold that to the extent that Corp. Smith, Chrysler 297 Mich ALR adopted “integral (135 900), functioning” as the basic test of the of “the extent establishment” in Michigan the employment security act (CLS 1952, 421.29, § subd Ann [1] [Stat 1953 Cum 17.531, Supp § subd is (1)]), overruled. Michigan point question, appeal on found, the hoard
The judge subsequently the fol- affirmed, .and the circuit lowing : opinion, find, unem- and we “It our so ployment to and due the case bar was the claimants of existing stoppage grew of work be- out of
n causeof a labor in the establishment they employed, that all of the which units were last Michigan Company, both in the Ford Motor of within constituted 1 establishment Ohio, meaning as contained word act.” this find- cited,
For have we hold the reasons we ing matter law. erroneous as a ques- appeal
Subsequently, turned to the board were the claimants concerned tion of whether or not n “directly labor in the outcome interested” para- .dispute provisions 2 of under of subsection 29(1). graph (b) of section appeal opinion majority board, findings supported fact we if are bound whose great weight (CLS 1956, “the of the evidence” §17.540]), Supp §421.38 [Stat ac- Ann Cum cepts testimony appellees effect *23 part plan to the a a union Canton strike was of upon company contract, force the master concessions affecting thus the interests of claimants. fact was the record that this While indicates issue hotly necessary contested, do not find it deter- we findings regard mine whether or not the n supportedby weight great the the evidence. reading 29(1) (b) clearly A of section indicates applies only disqualification that it of “an individ- respect ual” total “for week with to which his n or partial unemployment stoppage to a is due existing dispute work a because of labor the es- employed.” tablishment in he is which or was last 1959] Park stoppage as- obvious, of work is there That was dispute. Plainly,, a labor there was fact that the
is stoppage dispute was,, which caused the labor however, forge plant which we have in the Canton part in which “the establishment” no held to be employed. Michigan claimants, were last claimants record, cannot be found act and on this under our responsible dispute indulge unless we for that previously quoted argument principal-agent rejected. Georgia which we have court disqualification required finding the basiс Further, 29(1) (b) must be in the legally sentence section first relating proviso “direct made before effective, before consid- involvement” becomes applying ering of direct involvement set or in the tests 4. 1, 2, 3 and forth subsections opinions of care have with We considered Corpora- rehearing in General Motors on this Court Compensation Unemployment Commission, tion v. Mich 724. The there considered the re- Court lationship subsection 4 subsections between (b), 29(1) though language of section its did call attention to the fact Court to which (i.e., that none of we now refer these subsections disqualification purposes ab- be- become effective finding stoppage existing work sent a of a cause labor establishment employed). claimant No which the was last required obviously, reference such was since presented, there condition facts basic met. Compensation Unemployment Buzza v. also,
See, 330 Mich Commission, thought may nec- that no reference was be, also,
It specific language essary of the nature of the in view precedes proviso 1, 2, subsections 4: *24 “(b) respect For week with his total n partial unemployment stoppage is due to a existing dispute work because of a labor n establishment employed: in which he is or was last Provided, however, that no individual shall be dis- qualified under this section he shall establish if directly dispute. that he is not involved such For purpose section, no individuals shall be n deemed be directly involved a labor established(Italics supplied.) «unlessit is supreme Jersey, construing The court of New language unemployment compensation similar in its .act, said: statutory concept employment “The is an unit n withinthe State, and compensation where un- n employment involuntary. disqualifica- There is particular only tion for benefits under the clause unemployment
where the pute is the result of a labor dis- factory, premises at the or other establishment, employed,’ where claimant ‘is or last nonparticipation not then if individual is shown as provided in the statute.” Ford Motor Co. v. New Department Jersey Industry, Labor & 5 NJ proviso plainly The and the subsections de- signed compensation to allow to some claimants “directly held not involved” under the definitions they disqualified therein when otherwise would under the terms of the first sentence. finding we Thus, hold that the direct interest
n ofthe appeal board under subsection of section 29(1) (b), supported by great weight if even standing does evidence, not, alone, occasion n disqualification. questions pertains repre- last of our to the posed Dorsey sentation issue inus case. In Company "the case of these claims, the Ford Motor appeals finding appeal from a of fact entered *25 1959] Park v. appeals holding ruling the
board valid and a of the judge "that circuit the issue was moot because of grounds all of claims on denial of his the “estab- question. lishment”
Appellant point Ford Motor on this contended appeal attorney before the board for claim appeal ants filed claims of without written or other authority quired to and do, that, so since the statute* re appeals,
individual claims and those in the Dorsey case were invalid. appeal contentions,
As these the board found: “It is contended that under the union constitution represent only the international can its members any affecting employee, matter his an status as dispute resulting filing that a labor in the of purview claims for does within benefits not fall the Equally thereof. contentious is claim that the the power delegation application of contained for membership аppearance limits the union to its presentation, prosecution, adjustment and set- grievances, complaints, disputes all tlement of or of arising employer- kind or out character employee relationship. light believe this “We restricted view the statutory provision. of The statute authorizes representation by counsel. While the au- written specifically representa- thorizations do mention adjustment compensation tion in the claims, of spirit, language intention and therein is contained sufficiently declaratory representation. of such claimants were These laid of a off because labor growing grievances out been had subject negotiations period long over a ‘dispute’ time. There was them and the between company affecting employer-employee status resulting filing opinion claims. It is our duly claimants authorized their union, Ann [*] See OLS 1953 Cum Supp §§ §§ 421.32 suM 17.534 subd (e), 421.32a, 421.33, [e], 17.534[1], 17.535, 421.36 17.538). (Stat [Jan, them choose, represent might as it such counsel their claims. in the processing as their agent attorney repute Zwerdling, Mr. selected union (It Michigan. Bar of the State and a member of to- only decision relates
may here be said file law represent, of an attorney the right to no one- for claimants appear appeals before thereupon appeared Mr. else.) Zwerdling correspondence person the commission his ap- and entered redeterminations, requesting redeter- Such claimants. many pearance minations claimants, interests of adverse to the being *26 of each in behalf written appeals he processed simul- representative, name their in his as them attorney there- as his taneously entering appearance claimants determined that a few very The fact for. no importance representation their own is upon that practically more fact is important The here. ratified silence, their have, by all of the claimants have this date we of them. To his representation that because argued of no It is learned protests. form pub- a certain 5,700 employees signed some Facts’ expressly ‘Ford the union paper lished proc- them in to represent the union authorizing herein the claimants claims, their whereas essing were properly to the referee not, apioeals did their it un- light foregoing In the dismissed. the forms. them signed whether important any our case, opinion branch of “Upon their appeals in dismissing the referee erred his reversed.” hereby and decision is union constitution as The from the provision was: membership application on printed authorize and designate, “I irrevocably further and exclusively appear the said union empower board, before any behalf my for me and act matter any tribunal or other committee court, or as member employee, status as my affecting to act as exclusively my agent union, of said the presentation, prose- me in and bind represent T959] v. adjustment grievances, of all
(cid:127)eution,
settlement
disputes
complaints or
kind
or character
relationship
arising
as
employer-employee
out of the
fully
purposes
might
I
and to all
intents
present.”
personally
if
(cid:127)or could do
Dorsey
appeals presented
We believe
given by
valid; but not for the reason
case are
appeal
language
board. Under the
security
(cid:127)employment
each claim is an individual
act,
the claimant or his
case,
must
initiated
representative.
speaks repeatedly
act
in terms
The
n of“an individual” or “a claimant.”
1948 and
Ann 1950 Rev and
CL
seq.
(Stat
§
et
CLS
421.1
Supp
seq.)
§
17.501 et
Cum
argument
quoted
paragraph
from the
power
represents
general
union
constitution
attorney in cases of this nature seems ill-founded
attorney,
specifically
when
to us. Powers of
even
so
strictly
(cid:127)designated, are
construed and cannot he
enlarged by
Bergman
Dykhouse,
construction.
v.
Magilavy
315;
518;
Fekete,
316 Mich
251 Mich
Jeffrey Hursh,
This record clear filed appearance and, on behalf of under these claimants n oath, certified that he was attorney for the claim- appearing. employment ants curity se- thus Under *27 appeal statute, board, and the rules of the represented by can claimants be counsel. CL 17.533); (Stat Michigan § '§ 421.31 Ann 1950 Rev security (cid:127)employment appeal Rule commission board (1954 421.412). §R AC, attorney appearance an in behalf When enters attorney party, presumption (cid:127)of a arises properly Timmerman, authorized. Corbitt v. August 586); Rep (35 Collins, Mich 581 Am 95 265Mich St ALR 389; 12, 15. Michigan employ- discloses
The record security promulgated policy commission had ment August 20, this on
incorporating presumption in this record to literally nothing long There is many contrary, rebut this On presumption. before the hearing the claimants at the appeared in the main auditorium referee held in Detroit claimants Rackham for the building. Counsel testify indicated that those were to present prepared of the dis- on this as on other presumably aspects pute. One Frank Depew, apparently H. claimant, will typical, by called as whose appeal governed our Dorsey decision testified as follows: case,
“Q. And the firm you do want of Zwerd- presently & ling Zwerdling represent this case you before this referee?”
“A. Yes.” The referee at one stated: point 11,519 “All of the are considered present claimants by virtue of their hearing presence Mr. attorney, A. L. on Zwеrdling, gentleman my right.”
and, at still present another claimants point, urged who had occasion do so to to their as- go jobs, suring your them “Your matter will be handled attorney.”
If there of these did any are claimants who not authorize the of an appeal, they certainly filing not identified on this record.
We see no occasion these claimants to a hold authorization of requirement of written counsel not security statute, contemplated employment nor rules, or commission for that matter by any other court statute rule the State of Michigan. us, the matter is before we
Although directly feel that should be made to the real some reference issue disturbs the the commission. parties *28 1959] employed Zwerdling was that Mr.
The record shows ap- paid by prosecute these and peals UAW-CIO point, represent these claimants. On this Company our calls Canon the Ford Motor attention: 35. Intermediaries “Canon lawyer professional of a “The services should exploited by lay any agency, controlled or not be personal corporate, which between or intervenes lawyer’s responsibilities lawyer. A client and qualifications individual. He all should avoid performance of his direct the duties relations which intermediary. by lawyer’s and the interest of such A personal, client should relation to his be responsibility direct the client. should indigents rendering aid to societies Charitable are not deemed such intermediaries. lawyer accept employment any may or club or trade or “A ganization, association, as an such legal ganization, to render services in matter entity, organization, interested, as an in which employment render not include the but this should ing legal or members of such an services to the ganization respect individual affairs.” * to their presents reply claimants’
In briеf thereto, practical problem moved involved which doubtless employment security to take a unani- commission indulging presumption mous stand favor attorney’s appearance authorization claimant: on an Congress “It intention Federal was the enacting legislatures, un- and the various State employment proceedings insurance to make acts, recognized simple possible. It as might very involve claims which would be filed small 818.—Reportes. n slvi, Ethics and [*] American Bar 351 Mieh Opinions (1947), p 32. State Bar Rule No xv. Association, Canons of Professional Honigman, Michigan Court Buies Annotated, Judicial Mich p *29 Michigan [Jan.. 355
138 difficult, it would be if not impossible,, amounts and the instant representation. Take legal to secure situation, Plow of the claimants example. many for their claims- have pursued appeals here could of between and representing periods for benefits if' $105, weeks, possibly $27 involving it direct legal were for them to secure necessary without or other representation representation repre- not they union assistance? If had secured themselves, their sentation, presented cases complex the could have with they adequately coped issues involved?” make this we disposition case,
Under the we prob- the ethics legal find no occasion on pass the lem it unresolved presented, but note as security attention of the the parties, employment commission, Michigan State Bar. the that
For feel previously forth, the reasons set we the circuit should have judge finding affirmed the appeal appeals board valid the holding case. Dorsey
In opinions from the filed summary, appears that all this matter members of participating are in that agreement majority Court interpre- tation of the Chrysler words “the establishment” Smith, Corp. v. supra, was in error the inter- pretation thereon Mr. trial placed by Justice Carr as and adopted by minority of the Court judge, Chrysler Case, was correct. What 460) in the (p divides our at this Court time is a difference statute, but difference of reading opinion whether or not this Court can correct its own errors.
It is upon us that urged although the interpreta- Smith, tion of this statute in Chrsyler Corp. supra, v. both of time wrong, length which has inter- vened and failure to legislative alter the have statute 1959] v. only subject to correction the error rendered
now legislature. by has been consent, means silence doctrine,
This recently by eloquently and Mr. Justice dealt with Michigan (Sheppard Bank, 348 National v. Smith 601), and Mr. Justice Voelker 577, 599, Mich (Van Dorpel Co., Mich 135, v. Haven-Busch many 147-153). history contains instances Judicial subsequently judicial over error been where has (Bricker Mich Green, 313 v. this Court ruled both Sheppard [163 National 697]; ALR supreme supra), court of Bank, (Girouard States, 328 US United United *30 States* [66 Board L Brown v. 61 90 ed 826, 1084]; S Ct [74 Topeka, 98 686, 483 S Ct Education L 347 US 1180]). ALR2d ed 38 873, line of overruled a Case which In Girouard (United previous Schwimmer, States v. decisions [49 448, 889]; L United States 644 73 ed 279 US S Ct [51 L ed Macintosh, 570, US 605 Ct 75 [51 283 S v. 1302]; Bland, United States v. 283 636 S US Ct opinion 1319]), majority 75 L stated 569, ed 70): (pp 69, argument that, however, with met, “We wrongly though decided, con- those were even cases adopted gress The they announced. the rule which has Many argument runs follows: efforts were change an- law as to the rule to amend the so
made every cases; but in instance those nounced * * * committee. bill died in Helvering Hallock, in 309 106, stated US “We (60 1368), L84 ed 125 ALR that Ct S very require persuasive ‘It circumstances en would veloping congressional silence to debar court this re-examining its It own doctrines.’ best “Overruling" (December, 1958). [*] Note illuminating Opinions in article on this Supreme Court, subject, Blaustein Mich L & Rev 151 Field, Michigan Reports. congressional to find in treаcherous silence alone adoption controlling of a rule do law. We legislative not think under circumstances of this place
history properly can that we on the shoulders Congress the burden court’s error.” own entry judgments granting bene- Reversed ques- public fits to both No costs, claimants cases. being tions involved. JJ.,
Smith, Black, Voelker, with concurred Edwards, J.
Kelly, J., concurred in the result. (dissenting). C. J. mat- this a Were Dethmers, impression, myself agree- ter of I first should find interpretation ment with Mr. Justice Edwards’ the dissenting as, word “establishment” also, with that
opinion Chrysler Corp. Smith, 900). (135 Mich 438 however, ALR It seems me, majority opinion in that and decision case are conclusive of affirmance here, as the inasmuch distinguishing facts that case from were not reasoning treated as essential to the decision there. That case then, decided Since particular ques- the statute and the section here tion have been amended times, several but never *31 legislature adopted any has the amendment indi- cating legislative with dissatisfaction this Court’s Chrysler, construction, of the term “establish- statutory provision ment.” without aWhere is re-enacted change language, presumed it must light judi- prior that the action taken placed upon cial it construction with the intent adopt Antwerp State, such construction. Van Supreme placed Mich 593. When the Court has interpretation on a over a statute considerable period years may indulge judicial assump- the 1959] Park legislature
tion that the
been
has
content with
interpretation in view of its failure to exercise its
independent prerogative
provision.
to restate the
Munising Paper
Twork v.
Co.,
Mich
178.
Clayton
“In In re
Estate,
Carr, J., concurred with C. J. Dethmers, (concurring reversal). majority J. Black, Chrysler opinion Corp. (1941), Mich v. Smith (135 900), ALR in vain for a looks defender quite around our conference No one table. here so bold as to do it reverence. Yet the Justice Chief perpetuate would have us consecrate—and so —the *32 Chrysler’s now made by conceded* blunder tragic word “estab statutorily-employed when tbe majority sharp unerring was over construed, lishment” deny unemployment in such manner as dissent, industrial em employees; benefits thousands know we were entitled rightfully now ployees such benefits. and is Chrysler’s minority that
Admitting interposes perennially Chief Justice right, n debated extreme stare decisis —in its most rule of self-stulti- judicial form of wholly discredited by a to correction bar pronounced fication —as bread and error. In plain so confessed of its Court to no amounts words, position the asserted butter irreparable Because, than this: more against the Court was committed injustice legislature Chrysler employees multitude —the correction remained disinterested having since at that misinterpretation grievous its hand our oppress in 1959 equally Court must time, —the situated Ford correspondingly more of thousands such indeed, must continue oppression employees; the legislature like cases until directs in future we rudely denuded, behold (cid:127)otherwise. Thus stare decisis notion that renders judicial .altiloquent n error—of statutory interpretation so —frozen-final * Chrysler’s majority fully erred is Our admission that chronicled present In opinions. the first Mr. in with release of instance Justice Chrysler, judge the circuit whose decision was then reviewed (cid:127)Carr, Chrysler’s minority “plaintiff’s (Chrysler) reasoned with plants plication different regarded separate establishments ap- must be insofar as the (d) Now, by opinion of section subd is concerned.” signature us, proffered has in the he cases before Chief says impression” Justice this matter first would —“Were —he Ghrysler’s agreement minority. Einally, with & find himself in members of more Chrysler’s agreed composed now Court as have majority “constitute Chrysler (that Corporation all dialectic involved units of meaning one ‘establishment’ within of that term as n employed long right. (See act”) should last be set above n opinion Chrysler’s Mr. Thus Justice our confession stands Edwards.) mistake, exactly hearty, if not far unopposed so in these n chambers. 1959] 143' *33 appellate far as the errant court is concerned.. reject say, to Needless we both the notion and its. disreputable postulates. disputed ground recently fought
This has been inconclusively upon, bership. far, so our divided mem Sheppard Michigan
In
National Bank,
sup
348
577,
Mich
596-603, Mr. Justice Smith —
ported by Justice Voelker
and the writer —hewed
prop
the reasoned and authoritative answer to this
osition that a
of
court
last resort has but one fateful'
opportunity
and irretrievable
to
construe
stand
ing
ensuing
In
statutе.
the nest
term the issue was
again,
skirmished
this time to 4r-4
draw. See Van
Dorpel
Co.,
v. Haven-Busch
applied of a complete disregard eager quarters some of dis- which, in its proper setting rule judicial have undersigned always cretionary application, and continue respected respect. no member of days
In early these stark fact unawareness may pretend Court Sheppard debate shown philosophic that the at na- Dorpel high temperature Van has boiled the current tional levels. From jurisprudential gather of criticism” one would naturally “outburst monolithic, discretionary, distinguished new and of stare decisis is application something conduct; repugnant proper judicial prac- *34 institutions, tice our and free threatens liberties constitutional amendment legislation (by and that otherwise) ap- or is to curb necessary present-day whose view of stare decisis is not pellate judges of adherence to the formulas of former rigid (see adjudication Supreme “The Must Be Court 18,1956, News and Curbed,” Report, U. S. World May 50; Fire,” “A p Court Under U. S. News and World 21, p 58; March Report, 1958, “Supreme Court: A Justices,” Look State U. News and Critical S. Report, 29, 1958, 62; World August “What p Says Supreme Court,” State Chief Justice About the 12, U. S. News and World December Report, 1958, 88-93, and the Yane, “Crusade” of Dozier A. De pp chief recently “until judge the U. S. District for Northern Florida,” Court U. S. News and World 1958, Report, 26, 67). December Now let ex- p us amine “outburst” that which light the known surely respectable days judicial respectability. 1910,
In before such outburst long was manufac- tured and launched, levelheaded def- following inition of stare appeared decisis the official re- 1959] (Hertz [30
ports Woodman, 218 205, US S Ct 1001]): L ed 621, though tending decisis, “The rule of stare one consistency uniformity is not in- decision, followed, departed be
flexible. shall Whether question entirely from is a the within discretion upon again court, which is called to consider question once decided.” In 1932 Justice Brandéis his Mr. recorded en- during epigram that not, “Stare decisis is like the judicata, a universal, rule of res mand.” inexorable com- (Burnet Co., & v. Coronado Oil Gas 815].) [52 393, 405 L ed US point, S Ct From that having approvingly quoted Hertz’ rule say: went above, the Justice toon usually policy, “Stare decisis the wise because important ap in most it is matters more that the plicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right. Compare Whitnеy, National Bank v. 103 US (26 444). commonly 99, 102 L ed This is true even where the error is a matter of serious con provided by legislation.* cern, But in correction can had involving cases Federal Constitution, legislative through prac where correction action is tically impossible, this court has often overruled its earlier decisions. The court bows to the lessons ex perience ing reasoning, recogniz and the force of better process of trial and error, so fruitful in *35 physical appropriate sciences, is in also judicial (pp report.) function.” 406-408 of Burnet’s Helvering
In (60 Hallock, v. 309 US 119-121 106, 1368), L S Ct 84 ed 444, 604, 125 ALR the Court grips today’s came to controversy. with identical Having statutory found an earlier rule of construc- thorities matters although Here, [*] deemed in correction as footnote support important, might of this terse 1, Justice Brandéis have been secured occasionally explanation: overruled listed a number of au- by legislation.” “This Court its earlier decisions' has, in
146 355 immediately quite court con- untenable, tion congress, having tbat failed a contention fronted perforce ratified error, had to court’s correct from and had rendered immune that error thus (pp 119-122) judicial The court said correction. McReynolds dissenting): (Justices and Roberts recognize an stare decisis embodies “We represents important policy. an element It social continuity psycho- and is rooted law, expectations. satisfy logic But to reasonable need principle policy and not a me- is a stare decisis decision, the latest chanical formula of adherence to questionable, ad- recent when such however prior more with a doctrine herence involves collision intrinsically embracing scope, sounder, its †* * * by experience. verified specific congressional repudi “Nor does want of of the Union Trust Cases* serve ations St. Louis congress implied not to instruction us experience, light whether new reconsider, conjunction Case, decisions, with the Klein those † require of doctrine. It would make dissonance very persuasive enveloping congres circumstances re-examining from sional silence to debar this court explain own doctrines. To the cause nonaction its by to ious considerations of congress light congress itself is when sheds no * * * speculative into venture unrealities. Var parliamentary tactics might suggested strategy for the as reasons they treasury sufficient congress, but inaction only be walk would indicate we try quicksand we find in on when the absence legislation controlling legal principle. of corrective Lords, court, “This unlike House has beginning rejected disability a doctrine of * * * problem The real whether self-correction. Reporter. 80 L ed [*] Helvering † Klein United US 29, 100 ALR (56 S Ct St. States, Louis ; Becker 1239) L ed Union Trust 35).—Reporter. US 231 v. St. Louis Union Trust (51 Co., S Ct US [39] 75 L ed (56 S Ct 996).— Co., 74, *36 1959] v. prevail misapplica- principle shall over its later
a tions. Surely by we are not bound reason or that the considerations underlie stare decisis to application persevere taken in of distinctions a appear further on con- which, examination, statute sonant purposes neither with of the statute nor conception of it.” with this court’s own Here, then, is our contributed view that stare de- discretionary a cisis is rather than obstinate rule of analyzed, judicial Fairly conduct. declares appellate precedent courts should adhere to save only when due consideration leads to firm conviction scrutiny that the earlier decision or decisions in unjust, wrong well as rather more than injustice perpetuation flow less will оf that which is found erroneous. usually involving cases,
Those rare
the law of
litigant
property,
citing
where the
an earlier decision
having
or decisions is shown as
acted
reliance
thereon,* have not been overlooked.
In such in
having
stance the Court,
determined
overrule,
may
overruling
prospective
make its
decision
(Donohue Russell,
effect
264Mich 217; followed in
Department
Revenue,
Metsen
We
advert
a further test of that pleaded
Chrysler’s rejection. Michigan
is
reports
in bar of
past
decades disclose curious dis-
legislative
in this doctrine of
interest
ratification
light
action
figment
[*]
“The
is
Law, p 122.)
extinguished
picture
the false
of excited brains.”
light
and the decision overruled,
the bewildered
decision, only
(Mr.
Justice Cardozo in The Growth
litigant
course lured into a meet
ruin
most
when the
part
interpretation of a statute
judicially announced
*37
interpretation is on the other foot.
of
when the shoe
original
Michi
Why,
of
liberal constructions
when
(the
great
gan’s
statute
workmen’s
remedial
other
repudiated
act)
being
regularly
compensation
were
noose-tightening constrictions
of
of
here in favor
statutory provisions, did some
the
Justice not
unamended
same
point
quiescent
and
rise to
out that
original
legislature
approved
acquiescent
had
interpretations
interpretation or
and so had left
powerless to
other than follow
do
its
the Court
perfect example
precedents? A
of this fail
earlier
rough
life—between Luteran
ure will be found
Dyer
City
in 1946 and
Lansing,
in 1957*—of Haller v.
(LRA1917E, 324),
Mich
Brink
195
753
and
Dyer
Co.,
W. Wells Lumber
finally repudiation (p 94) in flat of both.” (as
Haller noted with detail Mack v. Reo Mo 278-280) Inc., Mich tors, 268, once was “a lead ing country;” yet case in this it was too liberal an interpretation composition of said section for the of the Court as it stood between 1946 and 1956. So having questioned Haller, first been in Luteran and airily City then cast aside Hickman v. Detroit, finally Mich no with † overruled legislative word—then or at other time—for “acquiescence” in construction Haller’s of said sec *38 governed 1; tion a construction had relevant application and of administration said section 1 for years. at least 29
Are
understand,
we to
from all
this, that
legislative
aphorism
applies
asserted
of
ratification
only when the decision to overrule
results
a more
interpretation
once-interpreted
libеral
of the
stat-
forthright
part
ute? Let there be
answer. E or our
recognized only
the doctrine
and
is
will be
for what
always
say, legislative
been,
it
that
has
is to
ac-
quiescence
many
by
is
of the
but one
considerations
appellate
which an
court
at a
arrives
determination
precedent
to follow or overrule an earlier
of chal-
validity.
lenged
persuasive
and doubtful
is a
It
but
Reporter.
was decided
268, 288) :
v.
effectively
others,
“In view of the
[*]
†
City Detroit,
Daniel v.
Our
of
and that
majority
overruled
Murrary Corporation
said at the time
many
Haller Case
by
Mich
decisions of this
is
547;
apparent
subsequent
Pilgrim Menthen,
(Mack
has
of
that
America,
gone
Court
Reo
the Haller
Luteran Case ‘to the
Motors,
326 Mich. Hickman
since the Haller Case
mat
guage American text-amended overriding way give under considerations “must cogent overriding consider- Such circumstances.” sitting, definitely present and no at this ations are willing or able to defend of the is member Court overrule. which we now opinion his Mr. To conclude: In Justice Edwards thoroughly appropriately con- to the referred has appear- painstakingly documented thesis sidered (57 ing Law Review current issue p seq.). There 151 et December, 1958, Mich L Rev, proof has never decisis reader will find stare necessary way allowed stand been righteous judi- judicial process correction place process, has taken cial and that self-reversal judges distinguished far from as back order of “ The title is ‘Overrul- Marshall. time John Opinions Supreme ing’ It lends In Court.” (p 183): opinion appropriate conclusion * * * judicial dis- is discussion of the “Here presenta- overrulings, and a which leads to cretion when determine tion of some of criteria which ‘jus- ‘necessary,’ of that discretion exercise possibly ‘unwarranted.’ tified’ or plea and ex- for more definite also “Here plea proposition overrulings pressed for the a —and judge every duty every court that it is ‘the * * * fear, without decisions, to examine its own and to revise *39 For there them without reluctance.’ public nothing wrong confession of error. with a is important that the Su- more is, It far course, right preme It than that it be consistent. be Court important the law definite than that far is more permitted doctrine be outmoded that discredited and to survive.”
1959] presents By unreservedly these we concur opinion foregoing Mr. Justice Edwards.
Smyth and Yoelker, JJ., concurred with Black, J. did sit. J., Kavanagh, AIRLINES, INC.,
AMERICAN v. SHELL OIL COMPANY, INC. Negligence 1. —Directed Verdict —Evidence. very judge It must be clear ease justified before a trial is taking of negligence jury. the issue from the Airplane Negligence—Evidence. 2. Bailment — Refueler — Evidence, light even when viewed most favorable to by airplane owner, plaintiffs, action airplane bailee of re- truck, against subrogee, held, fueler tank bailor thereof speculative a matter insufficient law and too to sustain vari- negligence ous claims of both bailor and bailee as to instal- lation, servicing, inspection, maintenance, and use the refuel- er apparatus thereon arising incident to action from fire loss ordinary refueling operation occurred while used when disengaged, hose connection appears became where it reinstallations, inspections frequently and tests had occurred recently. Negligence Knowledge op Injury. 3. — Risk of Knowledge liability negligence fundamental for as the injury actor either does foresee an unreasonable risk of [2, 4, [1] '9] '3] ^6, Liability 7] 6 Am Jur, Am Am 8] Am 6 Am Jur, Jur, Negligence of bailee of Jur, References Bailments Negligence Jur, Pleading Bailments airplane §§ § § for §§ 75, 172, 23. 344. 256-260. Points §§ 26, 170, damage Headnotes thereto. 17 ALR2d 913. el seq.