*1 County 613 ok Oakland. Cohn 1959] payment schedules) (cid:127)of necessity will upcoming n violate the constitutional limitation. 12 of the Section statute is unconstitutional in its to 7 of townships. Paragraph .application eon- as it to is, obligate tract so far these purports town- invalid. ships,
Denial of affirmed. rehearing JJ., concurred Smith, Voelker, Kavanagh, J. Black, PEADEN v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION. — — Unemployment Compensation Dispute Labor Liquidation 1. Order. Finding appeal employment security board commission that disqualified obtaining unemployment claimants were from eom- .pensation period employer’s liquidation benefits for after order by stoppage dispute, reason of work due a labor affirmed it, eireuit court eertiorari is affirmed on Court, Supreme appears nego- where it after months of prolonged tiations followed strike that subsequent for a period settlement, employer over months without or- liquidated mine, copper prop- smelters and other dered existing strike, erties involved that a week later nearly elapsed strike was settled and 3 weeks more before operations normal appearing, also’, resumed, were that certain maintenance employees and salaried were certified for un- employment compensation following period liqui- benefits for (CLS 1956, §421.29, dation order [b]). subd [1] References Points Headnotes Jur, 48 Am Security, Unemployment Insurance, Social ![1] and Re- tirement 36. Funds.§ application provisions Construction unemployment compensation security regarding or social disqualification acts (cid:127) disputes for benefits because 28 ALR2d or strikes. 287. [Apr: Reports. Compensation Liquidation Unemployment Order. — Costs — 2. proceeding to recover allowed are No eosts relative involving application of statute compensation benefits following employer’s for benefits disqualification of claimants *2 mining smelting properties copper and liquidate the order to 421.29, [l][b]). (CLS 1956, subd involved § Kavanagh, JJ., dissenting. Smith, Voblker and Kelly, to costs. JJ., dissenting as Dethmers, J., and Carr and C. (Louis E.), Ingham; Appeal Sub- J. from Coash (Docket January 32, No. Calendar 8, 1959. mitted April 47,676.) 1959. 13, No. Decided employees of Calumet R. and other Paul Peaden for claims following un- Inc., filed Hecla, & Division, Calumet employment compensation an- benefits during* liquidation local division nouncement upheld the Em- court circuit strike. On certiorari, Security Appeal ployment Board determination disqualification pute. participation in labor dis- because of appeal. Affirmed.
Plaintiffs counsel), Lynch (Michael DeFant, of F. & DeFant plaintiffs. for for McLean, defendant.
Norman are em- J. Plaintiff-claimants were Black, ployees & Calumet Division—Calumet defendant They applied benefits Inc. Hecla, security Michigan employment alleg- act, under here) eligibility ing (as for the issue comes August starting and continu- 12, 1955, as of benefits through September ing 1955. The commission upheld hearing directed claimants and referee appeal payment accordingly. sitting in board, by way rulings of con- and, reversed these review, lengthy findings, ruled follows: clusion its 1959] Peaden Comm." unemployed “It is held that the claiments were be- stoppage dispute cause work caused in the establishment of Calumet Division, Calumet during period beginning May & Inc., Hecla, ending ending September 1955, and at week 10, 1955, n andthat the claimants are.disqualified from obtain- ing period such benefits for the above-stated under (1) (b) (CLS .section 29, subd of the act.” .1956, §421.29 [Stat Supp §17.531].) Ann 1957 Cum thereupon Claimants out sued certiorari in the Ingham appeal circuit to review the deter- board’s mination. The circuit court found no error en- tered an order of affirmance. From such order appealed (cid:127)claimants have to this Court. The labor viewed board’s
n findings critically threatened then affected the (cid:127)economic — n what welfare of is known—in Copper Country.” Comprising “the the counties n *3 Houghton nearby territory, aiid Keweenaw and Michigan’s geologically this is Keweenaw remote and historic
peninsula. upwards a.century For of the mining copper copper-bearing of and ores has fur leading employment nished the source of and busi ness the the and area, defendant Calumet has been principal employer copper copper of miners and villages smelters therein. In most of the Calumet provided provides necessary has public and now utility police protection. services; also fire and position is in to cut these services off at will. Here, will indeed, be found substance of Ernie Ford’s “company Comprehensive, pic town.” then, is general copper country ture of when economic inwoe Calumet “down.” Understandable also is the fact that the arewe to consider—for purpose determining the sole of whether there ais -“rational basis”* for the conclusions reached Telephone 125, Corp; Rochester States, United 307 US S Ct 1147). L ed BeporíSí- by jackscrew ultimately settled board—was quite punitive irresistible of .sanctions. force “copper operates a re mines, smelters, Calumet manufacturing finery, other installa a railroad and Houghton and Keweenaw counties.” Some tions production employees hourly-rated in its 1,700 represented departments are were and maintenance of here America-CIO, A the United Steel Workers working contract, inafter referred to the union. upon by agreed in 1954, the union and Calumet April espire union to- due “terminate, 1955. The desired reopen, amend” the contract and Negotia notice to such effect Calumet. served February year opened in of and con tions were May 1st, fruitful until on which without result tinued participating claimants date the union—these to strike —voted called for The strike was Calumet. May developing 2d, and continued with commenced August un 10th, on which date the bitterness* until reject At “to the final offer” of Calumet. ion voted applied juncture corporate hammerlock was this (a Friday) Country. August Copper 12th to the Daily Mining published, caused to Calumet daily newspaper (the Houghton of the Gazette Country), Copper “the which counsel refer to as pursuing liquidation The salutation order.” portray graphically order declarations They play read : overpowering final hand. Country: People Copper “To The people Copper- directed to letter is “This informing Country purpose them the for the management confronting Calumet situation *4 * flooding the mines- resulted commencement The strike abruptly having stopped) pumping been thereof (steadily-required nearly a cooling smelter furnaces —of the in the inevitable and million statutory mediators, —in However, copper. with the aid of and pounds of molten danger permanent impending and attendant clearing shortly by resumption pumping damage and averted _were e .s furnac the 1959] Peaben immediately them Hecla to let know
& and what ac- management necessary tion has found it to take. "We sought all reasonable means We kept the smelter furnaces # # “In the current operate have maintained have endured a the utilities pumping long, costly vital with the hot, to the communities in to effect of mines, and union, have illegal settlement. continued we we have strike. have operated. things which we have We these have done hope agreement that an be reached. could possible, “As soon itas became we made an offer possible. which yond that limit. members as is a limit liberal There be- impossible go. which it is have reached We majority However, substantial reject the union saw fit our offer. “In view of this clear-cut union, decision I authority have no but alternative to exercise May voted the board of 26, directors on liquidate Accordingly, the Calumet Division. following being action is taken: employed presently hourly-rated “1. All and sala- employees orderly liquida- ried not essential to the being tion of the division are laid off. Those salaried employees employed who be can in other activities of company will be transferred. pumping being “2. All mine terminated. Copper “3. at the smelter will be refined and shipped and the furnaces shut down. inventory supplies “4. The will be sold. equipment disposed Machinery “5. will be of. proper “6. The authorities in the communities will they respon- notified that must now take and over sibility pumping- utilities services, protection. police water, and fire obligation employees
“Recognizing-its to its and- community, management, since has struggled against operations.- terrific odds to continue Country. Copper in plant with Investments modern equipment people and in have been made hope reducing maintaining costs and *5 [Apr- 355 Reports. enterprise profitable progress, in this district. While with, rising kept pace made, has been costs have operational improvements and the has re- division marginal. recognize However, that mained we in ad- obligation employees to dition community, our to the and the very important responsibility we have a (the company). to our shareholders of the owners say nothing If to loss, we are unable avoid of earn- ing a reasonable return on investment, it is the- duty management of to act in the best interests- company, & “Calumet Hecla had an has enviable and honor- Country years. Copper able record It is with for over 90 heavy beyond that hearts circumstances tragic our control have us to forced this decision recognize seriously which we will affect the lives and many loyal people. fortunes of innocent and “By authority of of directors, the board
E. R. President” Lovell, Immediately publication after of the above order making good quoted Calumet commenced declar- definitely go ations intent. out intended to physically implement business purpose. moved that impact In meantime, however, Copper Country the Publication order—on full effect. —took being Friday, Monday following on 15th) public (August eager negotia- saw renewal pending dispute- tions toward settlement lapse hurriedly and, ere of a week, the strike was August working settled. 21st a new contract was- agreed upon signed (yes, the contenders Sunday).
Remaining consisting principally events, of co get operative of all efforts the mines and smelters employment product for in condition normal except ion,* are little moment in this: Unlike qualifying resumed with Calumet’s As previously principal mining work recall of most of stoppage noted, tlie ended manufacturing September workers. board determined 1955. operations By had been, date dis- 1959] Peaden Jersey Department & P. Tea Great A. Co. v. New Super Industry, 573) &
Labor NJ A2d (this authority is the foremost on which claimants rely), presented no one of these claimants himself attempted or otherwise work, dissociate him- *6 dispute, pub- following self from mentioned labor liquidation Through lication of the order. the union participation quickened each continued if negotiations leading “signing up” feverish the fol- lowing Sunday. Not after until was the strike set- any tled did one them claim that he had dis- been by charged publication partial the fact of exe- —and liquidation cution—of the order. Lazarus, Like all desired “to be fed with the crumbs which fell from [bargaining] (Luke, 16:21.) Nearly the when table.” all,
applying unemployment compensation, dispute” application cheeked “labor as the on the form of assigned unemployment. reason for So, and contemplative as reader of said section will fairly consequent question discern, the real and is whether these claimants have a mat- as established, ter of law:
(a) dispute That this labor came to an end on August August 12th rather than 21st, and
(b) “stoppage by That the of work” caused such dispute August (or came to an end 12th on prior resumption mining some date and manu- September 10th), facturing on being “directly (c) status, That their as involved” dispute, August ceased 12th. Commencing May with the strike First: call interruption continuing August without until 2d, 12th, disqualification of claimants under section stoppage” by due to a “work occasioned 29 was which all “labor establishment”* Mich 103. in said section Eor reflective consideration see Park v. “the establishment” Commission, as employed [Apr.. Reports. employed.
then were This their counsel concede. The union—with direct involvement of claimants- per (1) (b) said section 29 Calumet for —struck purpose, declared and obtaining resolute that of “a. incorporating substantially new contract” their de- abundantly mands made. clear that union—and the business,” claimants—“meant is, the union intended the strike its week- upon-week month-upon-month continuity to- process. force a desired result attritional Cal- just grimly as it umet, turned out, determined overpower yield. Mighty to in rather than forces met
pitched ready being battle, each' able to deal tragic out regard hurtful and blows without for con- sequential injury employer, employee, community, or the welfare of this isolated area. From the stand- point bluffing. intent neither contender was showdown came when final blow was struck. permanent Facing unemployment, more or less *7 to the added dire threat of immediate cessation of utility “company and other services,” union man- ifestly compelled was what take it could—in a hurry. appellant So were the claimants. Such con- they appealing though may provide siderations, be, ground right may uo on which ofwe overturn a de- by appointed cision made administrator of the. employment security act. The reason is that no- appears error law of of rendition the administra- upon tor’s conclusion facts shown evidence. changed August If issue—of status as' 12thT this by authority tried law to been a court and —had uphold jury finding jury, that the' would we disqualified, “directly in claimants remained dispute, continuing in a until that dis volved” pute at not, time,' we the same settled?* Would Security Commission, compensation See Dean eases of Stason, quoted in v. Producers Produce Co. 350 Mich Knight-Morley Corp. 420; also, Industrial v. unemployment' Employment Commission, ’ 1959] v. Peaden participation continued as- claimants,
note the negotia- union, in such continued members any or declaration tions their omission of act ; also would, dispute? Finally, from dissociation of we not hold infer from the was to- that the triers fact were entitled evidentiary proof employer that the by persuaded, of claimants themselves union) plus (through the that of to abandon others, liquidate? determination to its Did not the claim- pursued August ants benefit the course between August May they 12th and 21st? have that benefit—- niggardly though may it their at and, view— accruing theory the same that claim time, benefits on the
they, August longer “directly- 12th, after no were questions involved”? I turn from these to control- ling authority; controlling only because is the point. authority in Unemployment Compensation
In
Commission of
Aragon,
(67
Alaska
-the union that season, canning the imminent fishing (cid:127)during 10th April have to be reached .agreement would 12th April operation Karluk the annual . nego- Although operation. as to the Chignik annual dead-lines, parties up to proceeded tiations Ac- at of agreement. no point were able arrive an- “formally 22d, companies on cordingly, April aban- they said) here what nounced” meant (they operations. of and Chignik donment 1940 Karluk was a contract continued, however, Negotiations 29th; for the 1940 on too late May executed finally operations. of negotia- continuation
It significant union, from and companies tions between held dates, the dead-line and after abandonment fair an administrative support .as of having provided was with dis- that claimants’ unemployment finding n qualificati'onary Pointed dispute. result due to the .also is the view the administrative upheld agency of (Alaska compensation commission) unemployment that a “labor as “active” dispute” during continues by” of a “continuance work induced stoppage such dispute.
Aragon is' a leading case, by leading handed down .authority.* cannot either distinguished or from fact case us. And its principle before fair need of suggests uniformity text for interpreta these essentially standard of provisions tion compensation laws several unemployment “part each States, being scheme legislative compensation induced the pro act 1935” security visions the social foot (see S .such is in the whieh precedent Ct One thought. I rely 96 L ed was watered dissenting my Brothers, are extolled 497). only opinion. down in Brannan v. (p 484). I reference to critical find nothing There the Aragon, Aragon, in Brannan postulates suggests Stark, any tending rule of US 451 its value as Aragon(cid:127) Aragon, support *9 1959] 623' Employment v. Peaden Aragon’s p report) being- note of and each by supported grants Federal on certificate of the secretary given that the “has an unem labor State * # * compensation ployment approved law under tax USCA, Federal act” 502). § recently parity
We such tried achieve of inter pretation by getting Michigan into line domi authority construing weighted nant State other (Park words of said section Se curity By supra). sug Commission, here, decision I gest by following- that we continue in similar stride supreme Aragon.. guide So, court’s and on strength Aragon and other citations to follow, I Michigan employment security would hold that the commission is the act vested with flex broad and authority disqualifying ible when determine stoppage “existing because of a dis labor work— pute employment in the establishment” of come- —has an end, and that its board did not in this- beyond legal case roam thority. boundaries of au following Aragon passage The connected from (pp 154) adopted purpose present- : decision “Respondents urge assuming that, their unem- ployment dispute, was due to a labor there was no- dispute progress,’ meaning in ‘active within passage after act, the dead-line dates.. argued expeditions It is that when the were aban- companies, necessarily
doned must possible way have terminated since was no in- ther.e negotiations brought which could have about a settle- ment. should be rec- observed, however, negotiations abruptly ord does not reveal that ter- passing minated with the of the last dead-line date. continued at Conferences Seattle in which both the companies represented. and the union were Reports'. [Apr; sufficiently the negotiations considered respondents at least late as offer terms to make an alive at time Even if he assumed some May 29th. of disqualification point the 8-week period within was peared, disap of settlement possibility all reached when follow that the commission’s find it does not *10 ‘active must over in progress’ ing .be Relations in National Labor Here, turned. 322 Publications, Inc. US (1944), v. Hearst Board L the 1170), question pre 88 ed 111, 851, S Ct (64 of broad stat application sented ‘is one specific ad in a in which the agency term utory proceeding it initially.’ the must statute determine ministering stat To the commission’s this application sustain is term, we find that its construction utory need not it is result one, the or even that had the the only reasonable in have arisen question we would the reached ‘re in The judicial instance proceedings. first is is All that court’s function limited.’ viewing the support interpretation commission’s needed that has ‘warrant record’ and a ‘reason is Board in law.’ National Labor Relations able basis Inc., Publications, v. phone Corp. Rochester Tele supra; Hearst v. (59 United States (1939), US L83 1147). Ct ed S tests, these we are unable “Applying say the was irrational with- commission’s construction out in the record. The commission support appar- a dispute during views as ‘active’ the continu- ently a work aby dispute. ance of induced stoppage That un- might reasonably conclude that the agency from work employment such resulting stoppage nature the “involuntary” which statute was n designed alleviate, by indicated statement act the ter- public policy incorporated ritorial see a view legislature. We nothing our a different construction require substituting rfrom that made entrusted commission the statute.” (responsibility administering 1959] Peadenw. upheld instances, where have ad-
Similar courts disqualification determinations of under ministrative statutory provision, are this standard found as follows: 900). Cummins, 6 Ill2d 382 NE2d
Buchholz during progress dispute,” of a “labor case, In this (of operators) employing association restaurant plaintiffs, all closed 225 in which some restaurants employed. plaintiffs number, were con tended to show that their dispute.” there a want of evidence sufficient was due to “labor 390): (pp
The court said bargaining “While the continued there was a at 1 of strike the member restaurants involved in negotiations. the locked In retaliation, the association . the doors of all their establishments. Bar- gaining aegis under the associa- lockout, agreement tion came to an ceased, with the union, the lockout employees returned to work. Plain- *11 earnestly tiffs contend that all coincidence; this is that there is no substantial evidence show by dispute the lockout was caused their labor with employers. agree. their We cannot is True, there subjective no evidence of the actual intent or reason- ing calling of the association in the lockout, but we required. cannot believe that such evidence is We dispute full-fledged existing find a labor between the union, association and the and we a find lockout during progress dispute. the of that The fact that triggered by vague the lockout was certain events [Cafeteria] at the Palace does alter the situation. plaintiffs If these had walked out because of the dis- pute at Palace, the could be said that the strike by dispute? was not caused a labor if And, the plaintiffs, through the union, a had called strike be- expiration of cause the of the contract between the union and the association, could it said that the be dispute strike was not a ? caused labor The facts any of industrial relations reveal that of one a nuna- Beports.
.626 catalyst may act as events -unrelated ber result end lockout, but the foment strike upon pressure an- group exerting economic of one other. In legislature determined has such case our unemploy- paid under benefits will not that ment compensation act.” Security Commission, Employment State, ex rel. 403). (57 case, In this dur 231 NC381 SE2d Jarrell, ing employer dispute,” a “labor the course following posted notice: employees. 2No. will Dee Mill Pee “Notice all operations date for of this effective as cease all employees period. em- seek All are free to indefinite ployment elsewhere.” 386): (pp court held merely company “By posting ac- notice, accomplished cepted mill as an the shut down of the willingness signified its to terminate
fact,-and its any employment relationship who worker existing labor withdraw from elected to not alter notice did and to work elsewhere. The seek any employee ex- from who refrained the status option. certainly ercising did not cause this already strike those who were existing and who continued on strike until dispute ended.” Review, Division v. Board Schoenwiesner Super Security, A2d 44 NJ jumped gun” “company 648). In this case the quick strike the union had taken after lockout a vote putting process engaged and was that a “labor held The court into effect. vote strike purpose dispute,” statute, includes within *12 among citing authorities Unem numerous “lockout,” Compensation ployment Alaska v. Commission of supra. Aragon,
1959] Employment Peaden v. Director Se- Gentile Division of 140).
curity, (109 NE2d In this Mass 500 case pendency strike) (during employer of a sent they employees stating “in effect that if letter to all they given date did not return to work as of a would replaced.” employees he was that “The found terminating did not treat the the relation- letter ship negotiate through but their union ‘continued in an effort to end the strike” also that em- ployees way employer any did not indicate in “to any or the union that there their was intention on part employment relationship to terminate their finding with Reed and Prince.” A of the administra- agency disqualified tive below claimants were for benefits on account of their continued involve- upheld. ment in the unabated labor was Employment Security Adkins v. Indiana Division, App 31). 117 Ind NE2d In this case, “dispute” pending, employer up shop closed they and refused entrance to the claimants when appeared Negotiations for work. followed and a working agreement ultimately new was executed employer (of and the union which claimants were members). The claimants insisted that their unem- ployment was due to lockout, rather than a “labor dispute,” disqualificationary provisions and that the apply. (p 142): statute did not The court held “As we view the evidence in this case, is imma appellants’ unemployment terial whether was caused by a ‘strike’ or a ‘lockout’ for the reason that in crystal either unemploy event it is clear that ment was the direct and immediate result of the ‘controversy concerning terms and conditions of em ployment,’ which arose on 9,1945, November between employer employees employer’s the chine the result ma shop, and, therefore, such dispute’ meaning aof ‘labor within the *13 Reports. 355
628 Indiana employ of the 7(f)(3) of section purview act.” * security ment Claro- to v. Legacy is directed attention
Finally, A2d 99 NH 486 Co., (115 Manufacturing stat following passages appear: where 424), because unemployment began “The plaintiff’s and would dispute to labor of work due a stoppage this Even ‘but for’ stoppage. not have continued a favorable view taking generally authorities that circumstances concede in these rights claimants’ the 17 U of of the unemployment. is causal stoppage L 338. 8 Rev L 294, 313, 315; see, also, Chi Rev Vand have where the courts by plaintiff cases cited distinguish all cause existed are intervening held Unemployment from the as in able situation here 329 Aragon, Alaska v. Compensation Commission of 136), employ 91 L ed where US S Ct (67 halt all reference to without operations er decided to * * * labor dispute. the work stoppage concedes plaintiff “While of the after termination have continued may it ended when he contends that as to him dispute, for 1 clerk to do. enough shipping there work deter- be stoppage This the work assumes em- of the individual mined from standpoint as a operation plant rather than the ployee stated. is not so as has been previously whole. This to the that the work stoppage plain- It is admitted tiff Be- dispute. originally was caused continued exist stoppage cause of this even until man- job individual plaintiff’s this re- judgment in the exercise of reasonable agement we believe weight authority hired him. The this in similar cases the better reaches result view until of work does not cease stoppage holding normal resumed operations may reasonably Stevenson, 237 528 (75 In re NC SE2d the employer. Burns, employment The Indiana Indiana compensation Stat aet was revised Ann § 52-1525.—Reportes. legislation in 1947. Bor various States, reference see note to un- 1959] Peaden 520), Baking and cases cited; Lawrence Co. v. Un- employment Compensation Commission, Mich 660). operations ALR Snch had not been plaintiff’s resumed re-employment before the on Jan-
uary 17, 1953.” *14 appeal
Second: This
stimulates reaffirmance of
firmly
scope
that which
judicial
establishes the limited
of
review administrative decisions. Unless
(as
Employment Security
in Park v.
Commission,
supra)
reviewing
point
court
out,
is able to
controlling
then define, some
rule of law
which,
application
findings
given
its
to the
adminis
agency, quite
trative
unfounds the conclusion such
agency
duty
has
it
reached,
is
the court
agency
affirm
judgment
that the
has exercised its
by
within
legis
the area of discretion entrusted to it
authority.
major
lative
ity
This is the
sense to which
(Knight-Morley Corp.
of this Court is committed
Employment Security
v.
Comm.,
“The function is exhausted when there is ap- found to be a rational basis for the conclusions by proved body.” the administrative Here we are asked to aside set an administrative determination that provisions these claimants are, under “disqualified
of said section bene- by fits” them. To do as claimed so we must seize Reports. many upon one of related and ultimate facts—that “liquidation publication com order” and (just commencement) by employer of mencement the up process purposeful boarding grim proof going out of business—as conclusive “intervening alleged claimants was cause”* do. of law. This we cannot established as matter In that the Aragon, supra, paraphrase of be held should right to that resulting board had a conclude unemployment of claimants continued “stoppage of work” was not from the aforesaid “involuntary” nature our statute was de which signed the declaration alleviate, as indicated constituting policy section 2 of the security (CL § [Stat 1950 Rev act 421.2 Ann 17.502]). § rule of the Federal This but follows the generally deci on review of administrative courts say, Taft-IIartley act, under sions † *15 interpretation of the act and the board’s “the board’s application situations entitled in doubtful are Board, weight” (National v. Den 341 Relations to ver Labor
Building Council, Trades US & Construction 1284]). [71 943, L ed Ct S great It sets This is not case. no To conclude: portentous proportions. precedent or No of new figmental exciting or commotional alarums—real appeal that the from our determination —will arise reversibly misapply misinterpret or did board lawyers what call a 29. Yet this is section said what was done case; hard sense hard plaintiffs-appellants pellants for constitute employee employer (b) “Did † The first The case cited discusses steps taken to of the the announcement relationship an Michigan employment unemployment benefits (and intervening thereby pivotal) reads give between remove the effect as cause so as stated follows: liquidation to USCA, plaintiff-claimants question security same, by disqualification virtue of section § to 158(b) appearing act?” terminate August 12, 1955, (4) (a).—Reporter. defendant-employer and defendant- plaintiffs-ap- the brief of employer- subd (1) 1959] Peaden bludgeon (as likely submission of the strikers is
in having brought antithetic where are shown case strikers employer to his knees brutal means) misshape and ruthless to bend or normal judgment. coolly purpose- inWhen, addition to indefinitely unemployment ful threat of throughout continued area, the affected entire communities shutting main-supplied face the off callous “com- pany” corporately utility water and other furnished right services, there no fair contest to strike against right brought of lockout. And the fact apparently employees here, that some favored were promptly (by Calumet) certified successfully benefits as hundreds of others were re- (by Calumet) subsequent sisted their effort to obtain such benefits, softens ease not one whit. Thus our meditation since submission of the case called for constant has self-reminder that we sit legal not as chancellors but reviewers of claimed part agency. error on the of an administrative We equity, (a equity question cannot do should be due course), equity not decided of as in an case. We express appeal cannot even concurrence with the question. original board’s conclusion as an Our exhausted, function is once it is found, as we have evidentiary permitted found, record Contemplat- board draw such conclusion. ing might lead, record otherwise however in- law in law case. advertently, writing of bad pass, “It is easier for heaven and earth than one (Luke 16:17). tittle of the to fail” law By the at noted dissent which the time so dis *16 mayed appointer,* his erst friend and recent Mr. put thoughts following Justice Holmes these Olympus” Frowns”), See chapter 33 of pp 366-370 (“The Northern Securities Case (Little, Catherine Drinker Bowen’s “Yankee From Brown & Co., 1944). — Theodore Roosevelt Reports.
632 355 (Northern States, v. United Co. words Securities 679]): [24 L ed S Ct 197, 400, US For make bad law. cases, eases, like hard “Great great great, tbeir reason of cases are called importance shaping future, law of the real over- of immediate but accident because some feelings whelming appeals to the which interest judgment. interests These immediate distorts the exercise hydraulic pressure makes which kind of previously before doubtful, what was clear seem principles will of law bend. which even well-settled What meaning find the have case is to we to do this try, very I difficult words. We must some not of natural tried, to do the same freedom have it with spontaneous interpretation that one would upon question an indictment sure if the arose same public attention, no for a similar act which excited importance only prisoner the for before to a was of judges need while at times court. Furthermore their work the training statesmen, of economists foresight of conse- must act in of their and quences, yet view apply interpret and is when their task merely aca- a statute, their function is the words English intelligently,— begin with, demic to read—to play, consequences into comes and a consideration of only meaning used of the words if all, at when the open to reasonable doubt.” English hoped) (intelligently Reading it is authorizing administrative rul- said section ing disqualificationary claimants that the status period which benefits time for continued over would I no error and therefore claimed, are find court order dismiss- without the circuit affirm, costs, ing certiorari. J. J., Black,
Edwards, concurred (concurring). of the-circuit The order Carr, J. affirming Ingham county on certiorari court of *17 1959] Peahen 633 appeal the defendant board should be decision of May dispute, beginning a That 2, affirmed. continuing there- for a number of weeks 1955, and after, & and its Inc., existed between Calumet Hecla, proceed- employees, plaintiffs including in this ing, open question. is not at The matter issue dispute resulting when the from such ended. August, employees through 1955, the 12th of
On rejected having their union made offer employer, company liquidation issued so-called stating, closing notice that it in was its substance, plants, properties liquidating mines and in- existing negotiations volved However, strike. August agree- were continued and on 21, 1955, new Thereupon preparations ment was executed. were resumption operations. carried out for the appears by September following op- 10th such stage normalcy. erations reached plaintiffs behalf of On it was contended before the appeal August board that the strike ended 12th, at the time of the issuance of the notice of intended liquidation. Obviously, negotiations were however, agreement continued thereafter, and resulted in an being pursuant operations, reached to which employment, appeal were continued. The board, af testimony ter consideration of taken on the hear ings during before the referee, concluded period beginning May ending September 2, 1955, plaintiffs unemployed 10, 1955, were because of a consequence, labor from disqualified were, receiving during period benefits under- provisions employment security section of the § (Stat act,* CLS 421.29 Supp Ann Cum §17.531). et seq., CL amended). § 421.1 et seq., as amended (Stat Ann 1950 Rev § 17.501 Reports. appeal the decision in the nature of certiorari
On judge upheld, the circuit hoard part: saying, lengthy court has reviewed record “This *18 the that the decision of this and cannot find cause contrary great weight appeal the of the to board is question contrary no to law. There is evidence or August period May 13, 2 and the between that for disqualified for be- were benefits the claimants 1955, August dispute. 13, and after of a On cause dispute dispute and the continued the labor 1955, August com- nature the 1955. That ended they put pany’s operations could not are such immediately dispute everyone to back work when get but rather it took several weeks ended, operations production. back in various
mines and employees were called discloses all The record back quickly as the strike ended as to work after elapse possible, before all nor- but some time had to operations again. be The notice mal could started company liquidating August 12, that the change that a strike not the status their did business progress. not end until inwas The labor did employees August all back were called 21, 1955,and possible quickly as .after that date.” to work as cir- with are accord the conclusions We proofs proceeding judge. in the clear- cuit taken findings appeal ly supported factual of the board. provisions relating statutory application of the The to disqualification cited, receive above benefits, required reached. the conclusion analogous question was involved Buzza v.
An Compensation Unemployment Commission, 330Mich employees plaintiff held that It was there were 223. during benefits not to receive entitled following ending period of the strike preparations employer completion may operations. also, normal noted,- resume 1959] Peaben security employment
that under section 38 of the (Stat Supp § act, 1956, 421.38 Ann 1957 Cum CLS 17.540), § may the decision Court reverse appeal employment security board of the com- finding mission on “is fact unless the decision contrary great weight to the of the evidence.” As findings before ly board clear- indicated, the were supported proceeding. taken evidence Ingham county The order of the circuit court of employer affirmed. Defendant is entitled costs on the to this Court. C. J., J., concurred
Dethmers, Kelly, Carr, J. (dissenting). J. To the facts stated in Smith,
companion opinions I can add but little. Our dis- agreements legal lie in the effect those facts. *19 presents principal
This case 2 issues: the First, liquidation, effect in law anof order of executed and implemented; the effect such order second, implementation upon unemployment-compensa- the plaintiffs, tion the status of who had been out on compared employees, strike, with other who had not. simply equality,
The crux of the latter issue is the respect unemploy under the of workmen law, to compensation. company sought ment lish to estab categories employees, toas one of which payable upon company’s liquida benefits were the tion, but as to the other of which were benefits to be company’s theory, denied. Those under entitled, the people were those who “had continued to work dur ing supervisory, the strike,” the clerical, and sal employees. “They aried Counsel continues, were bargaining excep not members of unit, the with the tion of about that are shown on an exhibit who engaged people were maintenance. Those the Beports. employees throughout company the deemed its had August up May right when 12th, to 2d from strike very company layoff I think the started, and the proper certifying under the them for benefits act.”* group employees.- These was another
But there company contended strike. The been out on had that it was tarily they “illegal” volun- that had strike, they guilty of mis- that were work, left their they had “automati- themselves thus that conduct, cally” employer-employee relation- the terminated they ship, to unem- that were not entitled and, hence, company (At compensation. ployment time, the no discharge point attempted to had it out, is careful respect employees, employees.) . With these correctly appeal “the ruled that board however, ‘illegality’ stoppage arising alleged out of the work may for consider- not be basis participation ing of the claimants strike May began of the the a termination 2, 1955, which existing employer-employee between relation purposes employer herein and the claimants security Michigan employment act.” Despite ruling em strikers remained are this they ployees, holds board company, liquidation upon entitled, compensation. Yet the record shows approved employees have been 51.other that some were ployment they were effect, is that .that sonnel “A. “A. “Q. “Q. “A. To the best of “Q. right? entitled And the Yes, Those who They Now, addition benefits working sir. were entitled *20 right? to benefits exhibit company are when the to maintenance during my knowledge.” P employees who the you reeollect what at the time to benefits at also took liquidation period personnel were entitled of the strike so the time. position liquidation notice went company is, Mr. Sincock? that felt notice went supervisory per- into- that, speak, effeet, because unem- they into is 1959] Peaden Security company therefor commission.* The inter objection payment. posed no to such In af fact it firmatively (as stated to the commisison that to such employees) objection” payment “we no have to the unemployment compensation. group The latter nothing countervailing appearing, have it. should, plant liquidation. employer-employ The inwas All relationships why deny ee were terminated. But it to the former strikers'? Employ-
This
is a
case
blood brother to Cassar v.
much,
ment
Commission,
638 Reports. supra. in The of the asserted ille Gassar, ion issue gality of the and the effect of such however, strike, illegality upon right asserted compensation, requires company The similar examination. pointing illegal, that the strike was
asserts timely not out notice was sent the Federal mediation and me conciliation service and the State agency, required by the Federal act.* diation asserted
justification for such we need not failure explore, if not since even we assume that notice was given, unjustifiably that it with and, was moreover, penalty Taft-Hart held, the therefor is in the stated ley namely, act their itself, the strikers shall lose under 9 and 10 of such I remedies sections act.† specifically it fair find nowhere either stated, failing in to take intendment, that, the addition, those procedural step listed shall forfeit their bene applicable unemployment compensa under the fits possible, entirely tion act. It course, would be for people, acting through legislative repre our their provide unjustified sentatives, that labor’s failure (or, any failure) prescribed indeed, make a notifi labor-management cation course contro versy deprive would all of later strikers benefits liquidated plant outgrowth an should controversy. potent in would, This be a wea primarily upon truth, pon, its force would be exerted since yet the wives and children the strikers. not has employed. been again, dissenting, Gassar, as was in held,
We hold supra, unemployment compensation that the act is penal- punishment as means of or of to be used loss re-employed specified (d)(3). † sections employer “Any employee Section of status for such 158-160 of this title 8(d) (3), this subsection shall engaged who employer.” labor employee engages management particular in [sections lose his status as shall TJSCA, 158(d) (4). a strike within the terminate relations 8-10 of the § dispute, act, 29 if and when he is an for the act], 60-day period TJSCA, employee but purpose- § such Peaden 1959]
ty alleged violations either contractual or statutory provisions. liquidation plant, to the if issue, truth,
As liquidation longer operating into went no n concern suffering company strike but a defunct *22 liquidation had which had a strike. That the deci- might year sion or at some later a hence, month, a date, a week, even makes it revoked nonetheless un- liquidation the der interim. It cannot, as to the liquidated act before us, be construed as for certain corporate purposes employees nonliquidated but purposes employees. for other and other liquidation: will then, We at look, the The notice repeat. my we need not Brother Black’s It set forth is in full in
opinion. unequivo- It was clear and company stop cal. But the did not with notice alone. implementation There was immediate thereof. All pumping stopped. in the mines was The removal of equipment from the mines was commenced. There precise need is no to further detail action taken be- company liqui- the cause defendant itself admits that immediately.” dation order effective “became company seriously was, states, defendant made, good implemented. faith, and it was
Why, employer-employee then, is not the relation- ship appeal terminated? holds Because, board, the bargaining “these actions must be considered as tac- tics.” betrayed
The board has been into error. In the place, I find not first the one scintilla of evidence that liquidation merely bargaining was a tactic. The company good insists that it done in was faith and agree. effective at once. The claimants From “bargaining” whence comes, then, this business? Is question it I no fact. a a of fact? find Is it question Not one case has cited to us law? been independent supporting holding such a and our re- holding has none. Thus the does search disclosed Michigan Reports. violence both to facts and the law. But it elsewhere, violence well. it be does as However phrased-, expressed whether of “mu- principle as tuality” contracts, is for the “equality equity” or in bulk our chancellor, simple speech that it that poor rule does not work people both ways, thus underlying principle variously is a at part heritage' our the common expressed Let moment, law. us for the the board’s accept, then, that a if ruling is not liquidation liquidation is a tactic. would bargaining The same reasoning conclusion that a is not strike suggest strike if it is a tactic. just was bargaining So, plant never never Did liquidated, strike occurred. the whole ever our What would thing happen? if Brethren now hold board had said all these had never at be- claimants been strike cause their work stoppage merely a bargaining ? tactic even if assume,
But we board, *23 company’s motive so was for bargaining closing and did not purposes only, represent final, a good- faith out of is irrele- business, assumption going effect vant of what done. legal was The mo- for tive the action taken it important, is not nor is it issue, an nor does control determination. The board has act with unequivocal, confused admitted the motive therefor. tactics are a com- Bargaining monplace in our economic society. is Property for bought daily sold bargaining purposes. One’s a lot for the purchase of purpose bargaining adjacent owner not' would relieve the purchaser of liability neighbor to the for to the trespass nor for taxes. The a State reasons for mak- company’s ing purchase, opening plant, selling products, its and, course, due its or merger, consolidation, control liquidation do not effectiveness legal the various actions taken. It has to our never, 1959] Peaden v. 641' knowledge, elsewhere been held that title does not pass purchase because a bargaining- is made for purposes, plant’s opening or that closing or was likewise ineffective for such reason. The law could, indeed, be so written. No no transaction, act, would regard have what legal we now as its normal effect purposes. if bargaining entered into for The dif- explore. ficulties thus invited we need not Suffice say precisely our law is otherwise. the fact that our law is otherwise that renders an act under- bargaining purposes really taken for effective as a bargaining instrument. proposition widespread application. is one of causing
The motive the exercise of will to do the may act, secret intent with which it be done, are, ordinary involving business transactions, not foreign fraud immaterial crime, to the com mon law. involving Labor law does not lack cases application its strike situation. Thus in Factory (2 Kinney, Deshler Broom 140 Neb 889 332), argued by seeking NW2d it was workmen un employment compensation quit that their concerted ting leaving plant of work and not a labor- dispute for other reasons we need not here elaborate. simply (p 893) “disqualification The court held depends upon voluntary under the act the fact of brought action and not which motives about.” finding was also the Such of the California court in Manufacturing Employ Bodinson v.Co. California 935): Commission, ment 17 Cal2d P2d * * “disqualification brief,” “In held the court, upon depends voluntary the fact of and not action, holdings which it.” the motives led to These are expressive merely of the common law. The *24 disregard powerless to this board is as fundamental legal principle disregard it as would be to the doc consideration. trine of Michigan Reports.
642
Unemployment
argued,
it is
the
of
Com-
But,
case
pensation
Aragon,
Commission Alaska v.
329 US
136),
authority
91 L
our
S Ct
for
ed
by
.affirming
board,
the action taken
the
n and,
difficulty
by
in
the circuit court. The
turn,
authority
any principle
case as
of adminis-
this
applies
law
it
trative
is that
inconsis-
different
“rules”
the
the same
tent
legal proposition.
within
same decision
question
the labor
On the
whether
dispute
progress”
“active
it
substi-
in
refuses
My
judgment for
of the commission.
tute its
quotes
employed (p
language
Brother Black
the
153) relating
to “warrant in the record”
“reason-
question
law.”
basis
the
But as
the
able
dispute (on
the
circuit court of
situs of
which the
commission)
appeals
ex-
had
court
reversed
156):
judgment
(p
its
words
ercised
own
these
this
circumstances of
that under the
“We conclude
factory, establishment,
was ‘at the
ease
premises’ in
the ter-
other
the sense intended
legislature.”
noted,
it will
is the
This,
ritorial
be
(as
situs,
a reliance
court’s own
determination
question) upon
former
reasonableness
Davis, Admin-
determination.
commission’s
See
ques-
to each
ch 20.
the facts as
istrative
Yet
Law,
distinguished
legal
(as
from the
effects of
tion
dispute.
facts)
were not
long-debated
regard issue
however,
not,
doWe
n ofa
judicial
preclusion
review of
court’s
statutory interpre-
upon
ruling
agency
matter
if
warrant in
reasonable,
have
tation,
holding Aragon,
page
record, as settled
single
any
or since its
indeed,
decision before
<or,
of the rational basis
Much has been written
date.
doctrine
Aragon
nothing
clarify
does
tracing
problem.
doctrine,
from
Without
holdings,
one
make
selection from a
and to
earlier
Labor
long
National
Relations Board
the case of
list,
*25
1959] Peaden v.
Security
643
(64
Publications, Inc.,
v. Hearst
322
111
US
S Ct
1170) gives
strong,
88 L ed
it
851,
bnt not conclusive,,
support.
judg
Yet the court’s exercise of its own
holding
page
its
ment, as involved in
on
156, finds
equally
support
strong
similarly impressive
in a
list
per
may
contra, from which we
cite the
of
case Social
(66
v. Nierotko,
Board
Viewed, as a matter of however, express profound misgivings we must the most to judicial expressed page course of action supra, applied Aragon, if to the issue before us. judicial Here it is no more than an abdication of our approve administrative function tribunal’s de merely cision tion of it involves a if “reasonable” construc Many statute. constructions statute may reasonable. best, We must do our with all possible aids, to find the correct one. Thus we cannot say interpretation majority the narrow our of the word “accident” in Wieda American Box Company, Mich 182, Board involved an unrea clearly sonable construction but was statute, that it not reflect incorrect in did the intendment Reports. n in the act before us. The basic inter the legislature a judicial act, of a statute is confided in pretation This duty, power, privi the Constitution. us cannot be others nor can it be aban usurped by lege, us. was Mr. Justice Brandéis who doned usual felicity the doctrine his St. phrased *26 of law supremacy Yards “The Joseph Stock Case:* there be opportunity demands that shall to have some n court decide whether an erroneous rule of law was In the administrative decision as applied.” short, interpretation may to the of a statute aid us but it uannot silence us. if topic, on this that even we should be added from judicial review,
were foreclosed provided only statutory that the board’s found war- interpretation in the and a reasonable in the rant record basis our correc- prevent such foreclosure could law, of the error of law by tion committed this board. can neither Here we find warrant record nor a (cid:127)a reasonable basis for legal (that conclusion de- liquidation was merely bargaining liquidation) no fact, nied both litigants, supported immaterial as a matter of law. also, must the most serious doubts
We express, which should con jury analogies as to the extent to respect trol with the administrative our holdings as, extreme, At at one process. extremes, at other simple fact,† here) questions (as “law,” jury analogies may clear questions jury But exhausts helpful. analogy parallel Judicial of statutes interpretation its usefulness. of review of the scope delimiting rulings n administrative bodies is still in state and embryonic frozen in currently any mold, partic must not be Mich 397. S Ct † St. Knight-Morley Corp. 720, 80 Led Joseph Stock 1033). v. Yards Co. United v. Employment States, Security Commission, US 1959] Peaden jury. jury
ularly The and the adminis origins and dif trative tribunal have different serve overlap Their functions. areas of are rela ferent tively not be allowed to narrow and should obscure differences. their essential disposed to the remainder of are not dissect
We upon authority contrary for cases relied n conclusion. They present, varying mind, our intensity shades of to the issue causation for unemployment. .accept. reasoning The of some we would reject. reasoning of others we would widely disparate. Thus, Their fact situations are .Aragon, supra, supplies purchased
had been and ves- prepared operation forthcoming sels which had dispute. to be abandoned of the labor Like- because disputes, nonseafaring employer may wise, purchase supplies job, and materials of an intended (cid:127)only project to have the whole cancelled because n ofa labor dispute. liquidation These are not cases. suspension given opera- The difference of a .between liquidation plant tion and the effective *27 of a con- is, equally ceivably, merely question degree, a but temporary so is the difference between unconscious- ness and death. final
A caveat. We not would be understood as holding public that if an or a act, announcement, is ambiguous we will not resort to all of the surround- ing meaning. circumstances determine its point opinion of this has a different thrust: Here employer doing an admits act admits immediately it was effective. Under these circum- stances it is a manifest error of law for an admin- deny istrative legal tribunal to such act its effect n upon post speculation, the ex upon based its facto (cid:127)success or that the failure, action was taken for its strategic liquidation effect. If the order had never (the terminology (cid:127)been revocability “revoked” is not ours but that company), of the -defendant if Reports. today, liquidation plant were closed would bargaining held a mere de-
nevertheless have been long how In for would the labor- event, vice? disqualification long dispute continue? As may plant next Brethren remained closed? Our liquidation plant rule that the of a is have to closing “accept” the effective until some workmen way, possibly by seeking or elsewhere, work converting taking ing clos- action, other some thus plant accep- If, of a a act. moreover, bilateral thought that, we tance be material the issue note company’s plaintiff ap- claimants words, plied most be- for benefits “in cases August August 21st,” some tween 12th and before they after. In most listed cases, also, and some dispute” application. “labor reason for the composed applications Had these the miners these learning Tschaikovsky composing a skill of precise concerto, astute counsel contract, more legal employed. terminology might well been have liquidation is But a less a due to a labor nonethe- liquidation, unless, course, we must now weigh liquidate. sift and directors’ decision deny unemployment compensation if Are we to un- (i.e., dispute”) prin- happy relations “labor cipally grant if controlled their other decision, but responsible? economic stress were Once more we authority the act for the search for and the common law precedent, except, possibly, but none we find, lonely supra, decision, and anachronistic Cassar unemployment compensation which was denied as a punishment alleged breach of contract. opinion our that the intendments of the act require liquidation that from the moment the order relationship employee became effective as to one *28 employer-employee of all terminated em- allegedly pre- ployees, all, and as well as bad good, unemployment sumptively became entitled to 1959] Peaden
compensation compliance and when if, as, was had requirements remaining with of the act. Great Jersey Department A. & P. Tea Co. v. New Labor of Industry, Super (101 573).* & 29 NJ 26, 30, 31 A2d nothing preventing There our is State law a cor poration liquidating plants from when it its so desires. right company
That the defendant exercised. But ways: liqui- it cannot have it both it have a cannot plant purpose negotiations dated for the of labor n undertaken, in appellees’ words, “to well-chosen n avoiddisaster to the community,” nonliqui- but plant purposes unemployment dated for the com- pensation. respect compensation, with Nor, may liquidated group it employees as to one nonliquidated as to the rest. judgment circuit court should be re- circuit and the cause remanded court versed remand the instruction to employment matter to the with Michi- security gan commission further agree findings the board review’s there “We with was a dispute, 4th stoppage because of a on March labor there work 43:21-5(d) provisions play. NJSA into come Al fore n though unemployment dispute’ not defined in 'labor is com act, pensation ineludes broadly labor The term other concerning enactments. any controversy of employment terms or conditions arising respective employee. employer out of the interests of cases.) (Citing employee The reasonableness or unreasonableness demands, dispute, place determining or the merits of have no Fash (1947), exists. v. Gordon 398 Ill whether Accordingly, 294). NE2d claimants entitled to are not un employment ending for the week benefits March 1953. NJSA 43: (d). 21-5 employer’s egg-candling operation “The decision abandon the at 6, 1953, brought Paterson stoppage its warehouse after March the work end, to an no for there was work available from that time on. As n already stated, it is clear that workers had terminated or employer; severed their relationship it continued until Friday, they 6th, March egg-candling when were notified that operation was discontinued. The claimants are therefore entitled to unemployment all benefits for weeks of unemployment established 7, 1953, total, after March partial or in accordance with the un- -employment compensation legislation underlying policy whose act — protection employees involuntary is the from (citing cases) which, being nature, remedial in should be lib- erally construed.” *29 Reports-. costs, No
proceedings inconsistent herewith. not question. public JJ., concurred with Kavanagh, and Voelker J.
Smith, v. SCHENDEL. HEARN Appeal Appeal —Briefs—Court Rules. and Error —Dismissal 1. dismissed, do not contain a appellants’ briefs where Appeal narrative chronological statement brief concise and clear ease, pleadings, character of the of the the facts form of court, nature rulings orders of the proof, of the substance complained judgment, errors substantial verdict and required pages appendix specific of nor references 67, 2, 68, (Court No as effective Rules No the court rules § 1957). January 2, Briefs—Appendix—Time—Court Rules. 2. Same — way everything in of “reason- litigant given has been A who procedures in for get order due time” which to his able within appeal to avail but has failed of his ease submission by complying pertinent relative to with rules himself thereof “day” appendices and is has had his of briefs contents any right appeal when is dismissed deprived of compliance court by Supreme for with such Court want n 67, 2, 68, January 2, (Court Rules No No as effective rules § 1957). Compliance.. Brief—Appendix—Time 3. Same —Court Rules — prepared and submitted their briefs ar- Appellees who have Supreme know from gued Court are entitled to their case they presently and should not Supreme Court whore stand persuaded appellants get required until around to -wait appendices compliance court as to briefs and with rules gets delayed (Court Rules. Supremo around to decision Court January 2, 1957). 2, 68, 67, No No as effective § Appeal —Briefs. 4. Costs —Dismissal appeal by appellee upon the- dismissal Costs are allowed comply current Supreme appellant’s failure to Court for upon granted motion- appendices as court rules as to briefs and January 67, (Court No as effective dismiss Rule No § 2, 1957). JJ., dissenting. Carr and Kelly, [4] [1] 14 Am 3 Am Jur, Appeal Jur, References Costs § and Error 91 et for Points seq. §§ 768-778. Headnotes