ADAMSKI ET AL.,
APPELLANTS,
vs.
STATE
OF OHIO, BUREAU OF
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, ET AL.,
APPELLEES. BAHNSON ET AL.,
APPELLANTS, v. STATE OF
OHIO, BUREAU
OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, ET
AL., APPELLEES
Nos. 5127, 5128
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LUCAS
COUNTY
161 N.E.2d 907, 108 Ohio App. 198, 9 Ohio Op. 2d 220
February 9, 1959, Decided
HEADNOTE
Unemployment compensation -- Eligibility for benefits --
Burden of proof to establish -- Section 4141.29(C), Revised Code --
Statutory construction -- Knowledge and information of Legislature
presumed -- Meaning of words of statute -- Intent and purpose
determined, how -- Liberal construction -- Courts may not impinge
on legislative prerogative.
SYLLABUS
1. The test or rule to be observed in the construction of the
language of Section 4141.29(C), Revised Code, comprehends the
geographic location of "the factory, establishment, or other
premises," or physical proximity or functional integrality combined
with other circumstances comprising elements to be considered from
the standpoint of the scheme of management, supervision, production
of each plant, authority of those operating the plant, hiring,
paying and discharging employees, methods of making purchases and
sales, and all other relevant and kindred matters.
2. A presumption prevails that the Legislature had full
knowledge and information as to the subject matter of the statute
and the existing conditions and relevant facts relating thereto,
such as the structure of modern industry, its business
establishment, large as well as small, and the ramification of its
manufacturing process.
3. Claimants for unemployment compensation benefits have the
burden of proving their eligibility under the statute, without
disqualification, to unemployment benefits.
4. It is beyond the prerogative of a court, in consideration of
the language of a statute, to enlarge or restrict the meaning of
the words therein under the guise of interpretation or construction
thereof.
5. The intent or purpose of a statute is to be chiefly gathered
from the language employed in such statute. If it is a remedial
statute it is to be liberally construed in favor of persons to be
benefited, but a liberal construction should not result in the
exercise of the legislative power of amendment under the mask of
so-called interpretation.
6. To read into a statute a legislative meaning or intent which
digresses from the scope and application thereof, reasonably
demonstrated by the language used, constitutes an impingement,
trespass and erosion by the judiciary of the sole prerogative of
the Legislature, representative of the will of the people, to enact
the law within the framework of the Constitution.
COUNSEL
Mr. Francis F. Reno, for appellants.
Mr. William Saxbe, attorney general, and
Messrs. Marshall, Melhorn, Bloch & Belt, for
appellees.
JUDGES
SMITH, J. FESS, J., concurs. DEEDS, J., dissents.
AUTHOR: SMITH
OPINION
{*199} Two cases are before this court on appeals on
questions of law from the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County, in
which the appellants, some 630 in number, are all similarly
situated on claims of benefits under the Unemployment Compensation
Act of Ohio. The two cases are based on substantially identical
records filed in this court, were heard together and will be
referred to in the singular. Our conclusion reached in this opinion
will be dispositive of both cases.
The appellants, hereinafter called claimants, are all employees
of the Champion Spark Plug Company, Toledo, Ohio. Their claims for
benefits were rejected by the administrator, and the board of
review upheld the administrator. Upon appeal to the Court of Common
Pleas, that court affirmed the board of review. No question is
raised as to any procedural defects in the several appeals.
The sole question we are called upon to decide is whether the
facts revealed in the record sustain the finding of the
administrator {*200} and board of review that, under the
provisions of Section 4141.29(C)(2), Revised Code (126 Ohio Laws,
337, 352), claimants' unemployment was caused by a labor dispute
(other than a lockout) at the factory, establishment or other
premises at which they were employed. There is no evidence, and it
is not contended by claimants, that a lockout is involved in the
case.
The facts revealed by the record are not in conflict. Counsel
argue on the law, without material disputation of the facts.
The board of review found that claimants were last employed by
the Champion Spark Plug Company in Toledo, Ohio, and filed claims
for benefits during a period subsequent to January 10, 1956; that
the Champion Spark Plug Company is a corporation doing business in
Toledo, with a plant or division in Hamtramck, Michigan, in the
Detroit, Michigan, area, approximately 50 or 60 miles distant; that
the Champion Spark Plug Company has entered into a collective
bargaining agreement with local unions in each plant, being Local
No. 12 in Toledo and Local No. 272 in Hamtramck, Michigan,
connected with the parent union, UAW-CIO; that the Toledo plant
received ceramic insulators, used in the assembly of its product of
spark plugs, from the Hamtramck plant which supplies a major
portion of the requirement of the Toledo plant in producing the
finished product; that a labor dispute, other than a lockout,
occurred at the Hamtramck or Detroit ceramic division on January
10, 1956, over the collective bargaining issues of wages, contract
and fringe matters; that by reason of the existence of the labor
dispute at the Hamtramck plant, the Toledo plant had its supply of
ceramic insulators curtailed to a large degree, and as a
consequence claimants lost their employment because of those
circumstances; that the labor dispute in the Hamtramck plant was
settled on February 29, 1956; that the supply of ceramic insulators
from the Hamtramck plant was resumed at once, and the Toledo plant
returned to almost full production the following day; and that the
major layoff did not occur at the Toledo plant until February 3,
1956, at which time the supply of insulators on hand and workable
was exhausted.
The findings of fact are supported by the record. The secretary
of Champion Spark Plug Company, T. A. Hill, testified that the
company is a corporation with its main plant located
{*201} in Toledo, Ohio, and manufactures spark plugs; that
its manufacture of spark plugs is started at the Toledo plant but
the insulators and cement drives are manufactured at the ceramic
division, department or auxiliary plant of the company at
Hamtramck, Michigan, a part of the same corporation; that the
ceramic plant is under the control of the Toledo offices, all the
offices of the corporation being located at Toledo, Ohio; that the
insulators and cement drives are transported to the Toledo plant
from the Hamtramck plant; that the production of spark plugs at
Toledo plant depends on the insulators produced at the Hamtramck
plant; that the insulators and silliment are used in Champion spark
plugs and no other; that the Hamtramck plant does not have any
sales or advertising departments of its own; that the function of
the ceramic plant at Hamtramck is to produce insulators and
silliment drives essential in the production of spark plugs, and
the Toledo plant would not be able to continue functioning without
the operation of the Hamtramck plant; that Champion Spark Plug
Company maintains a personnel department at the Toledo, Ohio,
office, which is responsible for personnel problems both at the
Toledo and Hamtramck plants, and for labor negotiations; and that
under date of February 2, 1956, as secretary of Champion Spark Plug
Company, he sent a letter to the Bureau of Unemployment
Compensation at Toledo, Ohio, in which it is stated that Champion
Spark Plug Company at its Toledo plant receives the major portion
of the ceramic insulators, which are used in the assembly of its
sole production of spark plugs, from its ceramic division located
on Butler Street, Detroit, Michigan (Hamtramck plant); that the
ceramic division is part of the Champion Spark Plug Company, the
main offices of which are in Toledo, Ohio; that the employees of
the ceramic division have been on strike since January 10, 1956,
over collective bargaining issues of wages, contract and fringe
matters; that due to this strike the Toledo plant of Champion Spark
Plug Company will not have a sufficient number of ceramic
insulators to provide work for all its present work forces; and
that unless the ceramic division dispute is settled by Saturday,
February 3, 1956, it will be necessary to lay off approximately
1,000 workers, effective either on Monday, February 6, or Tuesday,
February 7, 1956.
{*202} The testimony of George S. Hillier, production
superintendent at Hamtramck ceramic division, corroborates the
testimony of T. A. Hill, secretary of the company, and further
shows that all the patents on machinery at the Hamtramck plant
belong to Champion Spark Plug Company, and that nobody else does
the work in its particular way; that trucks are sent from Toledo
plant to pick up the supply of insulators; that schedules for their
production come from Mr. Shedley, at Toledo, Ohio, who sends him a
schedule each month and converses with him on the telephone as to
what is needed and especially when there is a shortage; that the
strike at the Hamtramck plant occurred on January 10, 1956, and
ended February 29, 1956, around noon, at which time production was
immediately resumed; that at the time trucks were loaded with over
a million insulators which were transported to Toledo plant; and
that some business connections exist with two separate corporations
in Hollerton, Pennsylvania, and Canada.
The testimony of Kermit Schoettley, production manager of
Champion Spark Plug Company, shows that the scheduled production of
spark plugs at Toledo plant is dependent upon the flow of
insulators and silliment from ceramics division at Hamtramck; that
it is a part of his duties to synchronize and integrate the
production both at Hamtramck and Toledo plants; that on January 10,
1956, the supply of insulators from the Hamtramck plant was
stopped, and Mr. Hillier advised that there would be no more
insulators until further notice, because of work stoppage or strike
at Hamtramck; that immediately he rescheduled production of spark
plugs in Toledo plant; that normal operations at the Toledo plant
could not be maintained by insulators made at the Cambridge, Ohio,
plant of the company; that no insulators are manufactured at the
Toledo plant, which is not equipped therefor; that, pending
cessation of supplies, the Toledo plant utilized all its available
inventory, and they were able to operate the Toledo plant at about
two-thirds of capacity or 50 per cent production; that the
Cambridge plant could produce 200,000 insulators, and the usual
daily needs of Toledo plant were 740,000 insulators; and that he is
in contact with Hamtramck plant daily by telephone, and insulators
are delivered daily by Toledo plant trucks.
{*203} The testimony of B. H. Sibley, vice president of
the Champion Spark Plug Company in charge of manufacture, shows
that his duties involve the Toledo, Ohio, Hamtramck, Michigan, and
Cambridge, Ohio, plants which are the corporation entity of the
Champion Spark Plug Corporation; and that he caused the following
notice, under date of February 3, 1956, over his signature, to be
published by furnishing a copy to each one of the general foremen
in charge of each department, and it was posted on all bulletin
boards and one copy directed to the executive committee of the
union at the Toledo plant:
"Notice -- because of failure to reach satisfactory agreement in
the ceramics division in Detroit (Hamtramck), it is necessary to
reduce production in Toledo plant. Male employees hired after
January 1, 1945, and female employees hired after September 30,
1942, are hereby laid off until further notice. When the plant
resumes normal production, notice of recall will be advertised in
the Toledo Blade and all employees will then return to their
regular job classification and shifts."
Mr. Sibley's testimony further shows that all employees of
Champion Spark Plug Company were recalled at his direction in a
notice published in the Toledo Blade newspaper on or about February
28 or February 29, 1956, to resume work Thursday, March 1, 1956;
that the sole reason for the notice and the lay-offs they involved
was the stoppage of production at the Hamtramck plant; that the
cash from which employees of the Hamtramck plant are paid comes
from the Toledo, Ohio, office; that Champion Spark Plug Company has
operated the ceramic division in Hamtramck for 36 years; and that
it would not be possible for the Toledo plant to continue
functioning under the present setup, if the Hamtramck plant were
out of existence.
The inescapable conclusion of fact is that claimants' temporary
unemployment at the Toledo, Ohio, plant was caused directly and
proximately by a labor dispute at the Hamtramck, Michigan, plant of
Champion Spark Plug Company. Collective and concerted
discontinuance of work for the purpose of obtaining better terms
and improved conditions constituted a strike and, a fortiori, a
labor dispute. Baker Co. v. Powhatan
Mining Co., 146 Ohio St., 600, 67 N.E.2d, 714.
Claimants would be entitled to unemployment benefits unless
{*204} they are ineligible therefor or disqualified by the
provisions of Section 4141.29(C)(2), Revised Code, which are as
follows:
"(C) Notwithstanding division (A) of this section, no individual
may serve a waiting period or be paid benefits for the duration of
any period of unemployment with respect to which the administrator
finds that such individual:
"* * *
"(2) Lost his employment or has left his employment by reason of
a labor dispute other than a lockout at the factory, establishment,
or other premsies at which he was employed, as long as such labor
dispute continues, and thereafter for a reasonable period of time
necessary for such factory or establishment to resume normal
operations."
The facts in the case and their significance in light of the
above provisions of Section 4141.29(C)(2), Revised Code, raise a
mixed question of law and fact.
A salutary rule to be kept in mind by the court in consideration
of the language of the statute is that it is beyond the prerogative
of the courts to enlarge or restrict the meaning of the words of
the statute, under the guise of interpretation or consrtuction
thereof. Section 4141.46, Revised Code, provides for a liberal
construction of the statute. The settled rule is that the intent or
purpose shall be chiefly gathered from the language employed in the
statute. If it is a remedial statute it is to be liberally
construed in favor of persons to be benefited, but a liberal
construction should not result in the exercise of the legislative
power of amendment under the mask of so-called interpretation.
State, ex rel. Maher, Pros. Atty., v.
Baker, 88 Ohio St., 165, 102 N.E., 732. Construing
an exemption statute, it is said in Dennis v.
Smith, 125 Ohio St., 120, 180 N.E., 638:
"* * * By 'liberal construction' is not meant that words shall
be given an unnatural meaning, or that the meaning shall be
enlarged or expanded to meet a particular state of facts. A liberal
construction must still be a fair and reasonable one, in an effort
always to ascertain the legislative intent."
To read into a statute a legislative meaning or intent, which
digresses from the scope and application thereof, reasonably
demonstrated by the language used, constitutes an impingement,
{*205} trespass and erosion by the judiciary of the sole
prerogative of the Legislature, representative of the will of the
people, to enact the law within the framework of the
Constitution.
The board of review construed the word, "establishment," in the
statute to embrace the plant of the Champion Spark Plug Company
located in Hamtramck, Michigan. The decision of the board was that
claimants lost their employment by reason of a labor dispute, other
than a lockout, at the factory, establishment or other premises at
which they were employed, and denied the claims. In support of its
ruling, the board relied upon the cases of McGee
v. Timken Roller Bearing Co. (unreported), decided
May 14, 1956, by the Court of Appeals for Muskingum County (motion
to certify the record overruled by the Supreme Court October 31,
1956); Spielman v. Industrial
Commission (1940), 236 Wis., 240, 295 N. W., 1;
Chrysler Corp. v. Smith (1941),
297 Mich., 438, 298 N. W., 87, 135 A. L. R., 900; and
Park v. Appeal Board of Michigan
Employment Security Commission, Circuit Court for the
County of Wayne, Michigan, Nos. 280754; 280866; 280901, decided
July 26, 1956. Since the hearing in the case before this court, the
Supreme Court of Michigan, on January 12, 1959, reversed the Wayne
County Circuit Court in Park v. Appeal
Board of Michigan Employment Security Commission, 355
Mich., 103, 94 N. W. (2d), 407, and also overruled its decision in
Chrysler Corp. v. Smith, supra,
to the extent that that case adopted "integral functioning" as the
basic test of the extent of "the establishment" under the Michigan
act. Thus, under the somewhat analogous facts, the final result in
the Chrysler Corp. v. Smith case
is consonant with the holding of the Ohio court in
McGee v. Timken Roller Bearing Co.,
supra.
If it were not for the reversal of its position by the Michigan
Supreme Court, we would affirm the Common Pleas Court of Lucas
County, Ohio, without further discussion, although the Michigan
statute has some significant provisions dissimilar to those of the
Ohio act.
Generally, the statutes of the several states disqualify a
claimant for unemployment benefits where a labor dispute caused the
unemployment at the establishment, factory, or other premises where
he was employed. The interpretation of these terms has frequently
come before the courts, with various results. {*206} In 28
A. L. R. (2d), 324, the cases up to 1953 have been collected and
discussed. The cases appear to fall into three broad categories
based upon tests of (1) functional integrality, (2) geographical
location or physicial proximity, or (3) a combination of those
tests which should not be adopted as absolute in all cases, but
comprise elements to be considered from the standpoint of the
scheme of management, supervision, production of each plant,
authority of those operating plant, hiring, paying and discharging
employes, methods of making purchases and sales, and all other
relevant and kindred matters. The following cases, among others in
several states, recognize this rule which Michigan now has
adopted.
Nordling v. Ford Motor Co.,
231 Minn., 68, 42 N. W. (2d), 576, 587, 28 A. L. R., 900;
General Motors Corp. v. Mulquin,
134 Conn., 118, 55 A. (2d), 732; Snook v.
International Harvester Co. (Ky.), 276 S. W. (2d),
658; Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
Sakrison, 71 Ariz., 219, 225 P. (2d), 707.
The case of Chrysler Corp. v. Smith,
supra (297 Mich., 438), turned on the test of integration
and held that an "establishment" under the simplest definition and
common sense understanding is merely something established, and
that the purpose and use of the creation, if to accomplish an end
in which all units are participants in bringing it about,
constitute the units, so synchronized and employed in
accomplishment of a common end, an "establishment" within the
meaning of the term used in the statute, and that the employer's
main automobile plant and other plants located nearby in areas
within the state, when functionally integrated and highly
synchronized with the main plant, constituted one establishment
within the meaning of the statute.
In Park v. Appeal Board of Michigan
Employment Security Commission, supra (355 Mich., 103),
wherein the Ford Motor Company was involved, the Supreme Court
overruled the Chrysler Corp. case renouncing the
absolute test of functional integrality and adopted the
comprehensive test of all relevant particular facts considered
together in a given case, and in that case it was held that a
strike in the forging plant in Canton, Ohio, was not a part of the
Ford Company establishment for purposes of unemployment benefits
validating the claims of employes {*207} in the Detroit,
Michigan, plant. We point out that the court relied heavily upon
the extensive declaration of legislative policy set forth in the
statute. Further, it should be noted that the Michigan act provides
an exemption to disqualification because of a labor dispute if
claimant shall establish that he is not directly involved in such
dispute.
The Ohio Unemployment Compensation Act before us does not
contain a declaration of policy. Furthermore, the question of
participation or interest in the labor dispute has no bearing upon
the question of disqualification. Cornell, Admr.,
v. Bailey, 163 Ohio St., 50, 125 N.E.2d, 323.
These distinctions alone vitiate the Park case as
a controlling precedent in the consideration of the case at bar.
The Supreme Court of Michigan aligns itself with some eight or nine
other state courts in holding that the statutory sense of the term,
"establishment," is not embracive of the whole of Ford's vast and
far-flung enterprise as a single industrial unit. The statutes
involved are not identical in their general provisions. The
rationale of those decisions is based on the particular fact that
Ford is a world-wide enterprise, rather an empire with autonomous
principalities, and transcends the term "establishment." Such facts
are not present in the case before us nor are they analogous to a
decision here involving Champion Spark Plug Company on the
particular facts in this record.
It appears to us that the aforesaid comprehensive test or rule
is the better and more persuasive in reason and soundness. Applying
such test to the facts in the case before us, we find that the test
of functional integrality is fully satisfied by the evidence that
the Hamtramck plant of employer is under the control of the Toledo
offices, the only offices of the corporation; that the production
of spark plugs at Toledo plant depends on insulators produced at
the Hamtramck plant which are used only in Champion spark plugs;
that the function of the ceramics plant at Hamtramck is to produce
insulators for the Toledo plant which would not be able to continue
functioning without its Hamtramck plant; that the machinery in the
Hamtramck plant is patented in the employer's name, and insulators
are made thereby in a particular way not otherwise available; that
the Toledo plant controls the schedules of production and is
dependent {*208} on the flow of insulators from the
Hamtramck plant; and that it would not be possible for the Toledo
plant to continue functioning if the Hamtramck plant were out of
existence.
The test of geographic location or physical proximity is
satisfied by the evidence that the Hamtramck plant is some 50 or 60
miles distant, and that trucks are sent daily from Toledo plant to
transport the insulators from Hamtramck plant to the Toledo
plant.
These tests should be combined with all further relevant facts
and particularly that the Toledo plant maintains a personnel office
in Toledo which is responsible for personnel problems, both in the
Toledo and Hamtramck plants; that the Hamtramck plant does not have
any sales or advertising departments; and that the cash from which
employees of Hamtramck plant are paid comes from the Toledo
plant.
The case of Spielman v. Industrial
Commission, supra (236 Wis., 240), cited by the board,
bears close analogy to the case before us. While the rule of
interpretation was expressed as "physical proximity, functional
integrality and general unity," the comprehensive rule may be said
to be inherent in its decision.
That part of the subject statute, formerly Section 1345-6,
General Code, has received interpretation in Ohio in the case of
McGee v. Timkin Roller Bearing Co.,
supra, decided in 1956. In construing and applying the
provisions of the statute to the particular facts of the case, it
is stated:
"During the time mentioned there was a strike in the Canton
plants of The Timken Roller Bearing Company. The claimants were
employees of the company in certain buildings in the city of
Zanesville, although they were not upon strike. As a result of the
strike in Canton the materials in stock at the Zanesville plant
were exhausted and could not be replenished, and, consequently,
there was no work for the Zanesville employees.
"There was no permanent structure at that time owned by the
company in Zanesville, but it had rented three unused garages for
certain purposes in connection with its operation. The operations
in Zanesville did not produce the tapered roller bearings from raw
material, but it seems to be unquestioned that the {*209}
work at Zanesville consisted only of inspection and assembly of
parts sent from Canton to Zanesville; that the work in Zanesville
was utterly dependent upon the supplied bearing furnished from
Canton.
"There was no payroll department in Zanesville, and all payroll
records were prepared and transmitted from Canton where the checks
were made up and forwarded to Zanesville for distribution.
"While the labor dispute was in Canton and not in Zanesville,
yet the integration between the two plants was such that the
Zanesville employees lost their employment temporarily by reason of
a labor dispute in the factory, 'establishment, at which they were
employed.' A geographical difference of 90 miles seems to us to be
of no consequence in view of these undisputed facts. * * *
Certainly, under the record, these claimants lost their employment
temporarily 'by reason of a labor dispute (other than a lockout) at
the factory, establishment, or premises at which they were
employed,' and this, in spite of the geographical distance."
The conclusion of the court comes within the comprehensive test
of considering all relevant particular facts in the given case when
construing the words, "factory, establishment or other
premises."
It is difficult to see how such conclusion would be different if
the one plant of the company was located just over the state line
of Ohio and in an adjoining state. The fact still remains that the
employee lost his employment by reason of a labor dispute in the
establishment of the employer. Notwithstanding the definition of
single employer in Section 4141.01, Revised Code, to wit, "all
individuals performing services for an employer of any person in
this state who maintains two or more establishments within the
state are employed by a single employer, for the purpose of such
sections," the employer who has such plant in his establishment is
amenable to the Ohio act and the requirements thereof to pay into
the benefit fund, and the employees to be paid benefits under the
conditions therein prescribed. Nor does such definition restrict or
limit the broad sense and meaning of the word, "establishment,"
employed by the Legislature, which it did not choose to place in
the preamble of definitions. {*210} The statute does not
exempt the employer because a part of his business establishment
lies over the state line. An application of the definition as to
employer rate of payment into the fund may be found in
Eiber Realty Co. v. Dunifon,
Admr., 84 Ohio App., 532, 82 N.E.2d, 565, and
Morrison v. Cornell, Admr., 103
Ohio App., 263, 145 N.E.2d, 140. The doctrine of noscitur a
sociis does not restrict the meaning of the word,
"establishment," for the purpose of reading into the statute a
restrictive sense the Legislature apparently did not intend to
convey. The courts, in the many cases examined, have conducted a
seminar in semantics to which we allude without unnecessarily
extending this opinion. Certainly a presumption prevails that the
Legislature had full knowledge and information as to the subject
matter of the statute and the existing conditions and relevant
facts relating thereto, such as the structure of modern industry,
its business establishment, large as well as small, and the
ramifications of its manufacturing process. 82 Corpus Juris
Secundum, 541; United States v. Champlin
Refining Co., 341 U.S., 290, 95 L. Ed., 949, 71 S. Ct.,
715; Irvine Co. v. California Employment
Commission, 27 Cal. (2d), 570, 165 P. (2d), 908.
The intention of the Legislature in the use of the word,
"establishment," is made additionally manifest by a review of the
statute by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Cornell,
Admr., v. Bailey, supra, (163 Ohio St.,
50). In the opinion of Stewart, J., at page 56, it is said:
"Not only has Ohio not provided a so-called 'escape' clause for
those who, without fault on their part, lose their employment by
reason of a labor dispute, but our General Assembly has
affirmatively declined to provide such an 'escape' clause."
This language is in reference to participation or
nonparticipation of an employee in the labor dispute. The
Legislature emphatically declined an amendment to that effect. And
of importance to the case before us, the Legislature likewise
refused to enact an escape clause pertaining to "establishment," to
wit:
"C. He has not voluntarily stopped working, other than at the
direction of his employer, in sympathy with employes in his own or
some other establishment or factory in which a labor dispute is in
progress.
"If, in any case, separate plants which are commonly conducted
{*211} as separate businesses, are located in separate
premises which are not on the same, adjoining, or physically
proximate property, each plant will for the purpose of the
foregoing provisions, be deemed to be a separate factory,
establishment, or other premises." (Emphasis added.)
Obviously, the broad sense of the word, "establishment," in the
statute remained intact. What the Legislature omits, the courts can
not supply. Laudable and praiseworthy as we believe the objects of
the statute to be for the relief of hardship of unemployment, in
arriving at a considered judicial conclusion upon the facts in this
case and application of the statute thereto, we are not permitted
to indulge a pre-occupation as to the consequences of a decision as
to any of the litigants. That belongs to the legislative branch of
our government.
Claimants, by virtue of the statute, had the burden of proving
their eligibility, without disqualification, to unemployment
benefits. Shannon v. Bureau of
Unemployment Compensation, 155 Ohio St., 53, 97 N.E.2d,
425. In Brown-Brockmeyer Co. v.
Roach, 148 Ohio St., 511, 518, 76 N.E.2d, 79, it
is said:
"The decision of purely factual questions is primarily within
the province of the referee and the board of review. The courts
reverse such decisions only when found to be contrary to law or
against the weight of the evidence."
Section 4141.28, Revised Code, reads, in part, as follows:
"* * * If the court finds that the decision was unlawful,
unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence, it
shall reverse and vacate such decision or it may modify such
decision and enter final judgment in accordance with such
modification; otherwise, such court shall affirm such decision. * *
*"
Upon a careful examination of the record herein and the law
applicable thereto, this court, hearing this matter on appeal,
finds the decision of the Common Pleas Court is not against the
manifest weight of the evidence or unlawful or unreasonable.
The judgments of the Court of Common Pleas in the two cases are,
therefore, affirmed.
Judgments affirmed.
DISPOSITION
Judgments
affirmed.
CONCURRENCE
{*212} FESS, J., concurring.
The simple but exceedingly difficult problem confronting us is
whether the two plants of the employer, one in Toledo and the other
60 miles away in the Detroit area, constitute a "factory,
establishment or other premises" within the purport and meaning of
the phrase as employed in Section 4141.29(C), Revised Code.
As has been cogently remarked: "The relative recency of the
[unemployment compensation] law and the paucity of judicial
decisions thereon create historical nuances rather than historical
facts, which are of only small import in a historical
interpretation of the true purpose of the act." Tennessee
Coal, Iron & R. Co. v. Martin, 251
Ala., 153, 36 So. (2d), 547, 548. Another court has said: "Until
more cases involving a wide variety of factual situations have been
brought to the courts, judicial answers will necessarily lack the
usual rigor of legal formulas, and tend to be tentative and groping
in their nature. Concrete cases will develop general principles,
and precise definition will issue from the wisdom acquired by
greater experience." Sturdevant Unemployment Compensation
Case, 158 Pa. Super., 548, 45 A. (2d), 898, 902.
At the outset, it is to be stated that there is a vast
difference between the far-flung industrial empire of the Ford
Motor Company, having some 23 or more plants throughout the land
under more or less autonomous management, sought to be treated as a
single establishment, and the circumstances presented by the two
Champion plants involved in the instant case. Each of the eight
Ford cases allowing compensation1 are readily distinguishable
{*213} upon the facts and also because the statutes of
such states in the main materially differ from the Ohio act.2
Notwithstanding the Ford cases are distinguishable, some
assistance is gleaned from the principles enunciated and the tests
applied in reaching their conclusions.
1. In general, the decisions are premised upon the laudable
purpose of the several acts to relieve hardships caused by
unemployment due to no fault of the employees.
2. The acts are remedial in nature and a liberal construction is
to be accorded the granting of compensation. Disqualifying
provisions are to be narrowly construed.
3. In the absence of a statutory definition, words and phrases
are to be given their ordinary (dictionary) connotation.3
4. Construction of the word, "establishment," at which one is
employed is to be determined from the standpoint of employment
rather than that of management.
5. There is no important distinction to be drawn from the word,
"establishment," in contrast with the phrase, "factory,
establishment or other premises."
{*214} 6. The phrase, "factory, establishment or other
premises," or, "establishment at which the person was employed,"
denotes a definite geographic locality or place of employment.
7. Functional integrality or interdependent syncronization,
general unity, physical proximity and other pertinent factors are
to be considered as tests in determining whether separate plants,
activities or functions constitute an establishment.4
Functional integrality alone is insufficient.5
8. In states having a nonstrike participation escape clause, in
the absence of direct participation, claimants are not chargeable
or responsible for the acts of international officers of the union,
to which claimants belong, in calling a strike in another
state.6
9. Administrative determination is not conclusive.7
Otherwise an appeal therefrom would be ineffective. But such
administrative determination is persuasive. It is of some
significance that in most of the Ford cases the administrative
decisions were affirmed.
In none of the Ford cases are the tests of functional
integrality, proximity and general unity rejected, but functional
integrality is definitely rejected as an absolute
(Nordling v. Ford Motor Co.,
supra) or basic (Park v. Appeal
Board, supra) test. And it appears to be recognized in
such cases that functional integrality, close proximity, general
unity and other factors {*215} may warrant a conclusion
that several plants are a single factory or establishment. To the
writer it seems that, as a matter of fact, close proximity is
merely an element to be considered incident to applying the test of
integrality. If a plant supplying component parts for the
manufacture of a product at the main plant is near enough to permit
functional integrality and unitary supervision, the former is a
part of the main establishment.8
The Ohio Unemployment Compensation Board of Review has
consistently regarded integrality and proximity as factors in
determining eligibility for compensation.9
{*216} Administrative interpretation of a given law,
while not conclusive, is, if long continued, to be reckoned with
most seriously and is not to be disregarded and set aside unless
judicial construction makes it imperative to do so.
Industrial Commission v. Brown,
92 Ohio St., 309, 311, 110 N.E., 744; State, ex rel.
Automobile Machine Co., v. Brown, Secy. of
State, 121 Ohio St., 73, 76, 166 N.E., 903; State,
ex rel. Schweinhagen, v. Underhill,
Clerk, 141 Ohio St., 128, 132, 46 N.E.2d, 861;
Miami Conservancy Dist. v.
Bucher, 87 Ohio App., 390, 95 N.E.2d, 226;
Tasich v. Board of Liquor
Control, 95 Ohio App., 377, 119 N.E.2d, 659;
Wadsworth v. Dambach, 99 Ohio
App., 269, 280, 133 N.E.2d, 158; 82 Corpus Juris Secundum, 761. Of
course, administrative practice can not prevail over the clear
requirements of a statute prescribing a different procedure,
State, ex rel. Morris, v. Industrial
Commission, 134 Ohio St., 380, 17 N.E.2d, 741;
State, ex rel. Brooks Equipment & Mfg. Co., v.
Evatt, Dir., 137 Ohio St., 125, 28 N.E.2d, 360,
particularly where the language of the statute is so plain and
unequivocal as to admit of but one interpretation. State,
ex rel. Kildow, v. Industrial Commission,
128 Ohio St., 573, 581, 192 N.E., 873.
It is contended that by reason of the last sentence in Section
4141.01(A), Revised Code, an out-of-state plant is excluded from an
establishment in Ohio. Section 4141.01, inter
alia, undertakes to define "employer" as including any
individual or type of organization, corporate or otherwise, having
in employment three or more individuals at any one time within a
calendar year. The last sentence of subparagraph (A) recites:
"All individuals performing services for an employer of any
person in this state who maintains two or more
establishments within this state are employed by a
single employer for the purpose of such sections
[4141.01 to 4141.46, inclusive]." (Emphasis supplied.)
This paragraph undertakes to define the word, "employer," as the
term is employed throughout the act and incident thereto
{*217} refers to a "single employer." Although a number of
other terms are defined in the section, the word, "establishment,"
is not defined.
As the writer construes the quoted sentence, it prevents an
employer from avoiding the provisions of the act by employing two
persons only in each of two establishments in the state. It also
treats as a single employer one who maintains two or more
establishments within the state, regardless of whether the
operations in the separate establishments are integrated or not and
regardless of whether separate types of businesses are conducted
therein. As a result of this sentence, an employer having two or
more establishments within Ohio has a single account and, for merit
rating, his contributions are computed upon the basis of his
over-all unemployment experience in the several establishments he
operates. See Eiber Realty Co. v. Dunifon,
Admr., 84 Ohio App., 532, 82 N.E.2d, 565.
Furthermore, the reason why the phrase, "two or more," rather
than, "one or more," is employed is because an employer having but
one establishment is covered by the first paragraph in subparagraph
(A). The quoted sentence makes no reference to an establishment
outside the state for the obvious reason that employees of an Ohio
employer outside Ohio are presumably covered by the foreign state
and are not amenable to the Ohio act.10
The definition is limited to the meaning of the word,
"employer," as used throughout the act and has no application to
the word, "establishment," or the phrase, "factory, establishment
or other premises," as used in Section 4141.29(C)(2), Revised Code,
other than tending to indicate that the term, "establishment," may
have been intended to be used in its singular sense.11
{*218} In the absence of a statutory or Ohio judicial
definition of the phrase, "factory, establishment or other
premises," when we are confronted with conflicting contentions as
to the meaning which the General Assembly intended, the writer has
given serious concern to the applicability of Section 4141.46,
Revised Code, requiring that the sections of the act shall be
liberally construed. In Baker v. Powhatan
Mining Co., supra (146 Ohio St., 600), the court refers to
the underlying purpose of the act to lighten the burden of
unemployment and that it was designed for the benefit of those
whose loss of employment is involuntary, but not those who might be
voluntarily unemployed. But the court held that the word, "strike,"
as then employed in the disqualifying section, instead of "labor
dispute," included cessation of work pending negotiation of a new
collective bargaining agreement. In that case there was a definite
dispute with respect to the meaning of the word, "strike," but the
court, without reference to applying the statutory rule of liberal
construction, broadened the term to include cessation of work
notwithstanding the fact that it could well have concluded that the
claimants voluntarily quit work.12
Again, in Cornell, Admr., v. Bailey,
supra (163 Ohio St., 50), the claimants were not members
of the striking union, were not concerned with the dispute and did
not participate in the dispute or strike in any way. The court held
that those claimants who quit their employment in sympathy with the
strikers left their employment and those who were
involuntarily deprived of their employment lost
their employment by reason of a labor dispute. In referring to the
failure of the 98th General Assembly to enact the proposed "escape
clause," the court, at page 57, says:
"It seems manifest from the preceding legislative history that
the General Assembly positively intended that any person
{*219} who loses his employment voluntarily or
involuntarily, as a result of a labor dispute, shall not be
eligible for unemployment benefits as long as that labor dispute
continues."13
In Cornell, Admr., v. Bailey,
supra, the court in reaching its conclusion that the
claimants were disqualified from receiving benefits refers to the
rejection by the General Assembly of an "escape clause" amendment
to the statute. See, also, State, ex rel. Shafer,
v. Ohio Turnpike Commission, 159 Ohio St., 581,
588, 113 N.E.2d, 14, referring to the rejection of an amendment as
persuasive in construing the provision of the statute under
consideration. It is, therefore, significant that since the 1949
session of the General Assembly it has not seen fit to enact any
so-called "escape" clause at subsequent sessions.
In Shannon v. Bureau of Unemployment
Compensation, 155 Ohio St., 53, 97 N.E.2d, 425, in the
absence of a statutory provision relating thereto, the court held
that the burden of proof is upon the claimant to establish the
right to unemployment compensation and also that the phrase,
"available for work," as used in the statute implies some
obligation on the part of the claimant to make reasonable effort to
obtain work. See dissenting opinion referring to the statute
enjoining liberal construction. See, also, United
Steelworkers of America v. Doyle, Claims
Supr., 168 Ohio St., 324, 154 N.E.2d, 623, and
Zanesville Rapid Transit, Inc., v.
Bailey, 168 Ohio St., 351, 155 N.E.2d, 202,
wherein decisions construing statutory provisions adverse to
claimants were rendered. Contra, Acierno v.
General Fireproofing Co., 166 Ohio St., 538, 144
N.E.2d, 201.
It thus becomes apparent that the statutory admonition of
liberal construction has not prevented the courts of Ohio from
applying a disappointing but reasonable construction in the
ascertainment of the legislative intent.
Authorities in other jurisdictions more closely analogous
{*220} upon the facts as well as the law to the situation
presented in the instant case are Spielman v.
Industrial Commission, supra (236 Wis., 240);
Matson Terminals v. California Employment
Commission (1944), 24 Cal. (2d), 695, 151 P. (2d), 202;
General Motors Corp. v. Mulquin,
supra (134 Conn., 118); and Mountain States Tel.
& Tel. Co. v. Sakrison (1950), 71
Ariz., 219, 225 P. (2d), 707. But in resolving the question, we
need not go beyond Ohio unless we disagree with the conclusion
reached by the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeals in
McGee v. Timken Roller Bearing
Co.14
Upon authority of those cases, it is, therefore, concluded that
the Common Pleas Court did not err in failing to find that the
decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review was
unlawful, unreasonable or against the manifest weight of the
evidence, and that the judgment should be affirmed.
DISSENT
DEEDS, J., dissenting.
I do not concur in the conclusion reached by the majority
members of this court. I am in accord with the conclusion arrived
at in the decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan in
the case of Park v. Appeal Board of
Michigan Employment Security Commission, 355 Mich., 103,
94 N. W. (2d), 407.
The two headnotes to that case, as reported in the Commerce
Clearing House Unemployment Compensation Reports, considered
pertinent here, are as follows:
"Workers employed at three of an automobile manufacturer's
Detroit plants were laid off as a result of a strike at a Canton,
Ohio, forgings plant owned by the same manufacturer. It is held
that the 'functional integration' of an employer's plants that are
located in more than one state does not make the plants a single
'establishment' within the meaning of the law. Therefore, employees
out of work in Michigan as a result of a strike against their
employer in Ohio are not disqualified under the labor-dispute
provisions of the law, where such employees did not strike or
picket but were laid off. The earlier {*221} (1941) ruling
of the court on a similar point in Chrysler Corp.
v. Smith * * * [297 Mich., 438], holding that the
basic test in determining an 'establishment' is 'functional
integration,' is overruled.
"It is held unnecessary to determine whether any of the four
subsections of the labor-dispute provision of the law applies to
the employees (e. g., whether they were 'directly
interested' in the dispute), since, without a finding that there
was a labor dispute in the 'establishment' where they were
employed, the labor-dispute provision may not apply."
It is believed to be clear, from a consideration of the first
headnote quoted above, that the decision in the Michigan case,
supra, was influenced to a very great extent by
the fact that the strike was at Canton in the state of Ohio, while
the claimants were employed at the establishments of the employer
located in the state of Michigan. In other words, the
establishments were in two states, and that fact was pertinent. We
have a like situation in the case being considered here, for the
reason that the strike was at the "establishment" of the employer,
maintained in the state of Michigan, while the individual claimants
were employed at the "establishment" maintained by the employer in
the state of Ohio.
It is the view of the writer that the definition of a "single
employer" in the Ohio law is controlling in a decision on this
appeal. Therefore, "single employer" will be considered later in
this opinion.
For the purpose of indicating the similarity in the factual
situation, the writer quotes from the opinion of the court in
Park v. Appeal Board, supra (355
Mich., 103), as follows:
"EDWARD, J. These cases are of great financial importance to the
litigants. Yet, after a careful review of over 1,600 printed pages
of records and briefs, we conclude that they turn upon the answer
to a relatively simple legal question -- Does the term 'the
establishment,' as used in the Michigan employment security act,
encompass both Ford plants in the vicinity of Detroit, Michigan,
and the Ford forge plant at Canton, Ohio, for the reason that the
former cannot operate long without the latter?
"The question is by no means new. In very similar form, it has
previously been submitted to the judicial systems of 9
{*222} states, each of which had at the time statutory
language of like import to that of our state to construe.
"The appellate courts in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Minnesota,
Kentucky, New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania answered the
question in the negative. Georgia's Supreme Court alone answered
affirmately. In the 9th state, Texas, where compensation claims
were allowed under a similar situation and somewhat similar
statutory language, the present defendant stipulated to dismissal
of its appeal -- perhaps in anticipation of a legislative amendment
favorable to its position, which did indeed follow.
"For reasons which we detail hereafter, we arrive at the same
conclusion reached by the great majority of the courts which have
considered the problem. Although, as we will note, much more is in
dispute between these parties, in the end this decides the
principal question in these cases.
"* * *
"The union with which we are concerned in these cases is the
International Union UAW-CIO which, during the period in question,
was the exclusive collective bargaining agent of all of the
hourly-production and maintenance employees of the Ford Motor
Company in 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.
"* * *
"Judges and lawyers can frequently do astonishing things with
words. No layman would venture to suggest that the single word
'establishment,' used in the paragraph above could in normal usage
be applied to both the Ford Rouge plant in Dearborn, Michigan, and
the Ford forge plant in Canton, Ohio.
"The writer believes also that no layman, without a specific
motive in mind, would read the statutory provisions quoted above
and come to the conclusion that the Legislature had any such
inclusiveness in its intended use of the word. Although the statute
carries within it no definition of 'establishment,' its use of the
term is, in our opinion, such as clearly to rule out the broad
interpretation sought by appellees. Thus, the statute defines the
term 'employing unit' in the same broad sense which appellees seek
to apply to 'establishment':
{*223} "'"Employing unit" means any individual or type
of organization, including any partnership, association, trust,
estate, joint-stock company, insurance company or corporation
whether domestic or foreign * * *.' C.L.1948, Section 421.40 (Stat.
Ann. 1950 Rev. Section 17.542).
"And, in the second sentence of the same definition paragraph,
it makes such use of the word 'establishment' as, in our view, to
preclude any attempt at definition in terms of all integrated
plants of a company, wherever located:
"'All individuals performing services within this state for any
employing unit which maintains 2 or more separate establishments
within this state shall be deemed to be employed by a single
employing unit for all the purposes of this act.'
"Indeed, since appellee Ford Motor Company's basic premise is
that all of its plants are integrated with its Michigan plants, it
appears that appellee seeks an interpretation of the word
'establishment' synonymous with the term 'employing unit' as
defined in the statute.
"* * *
"While the dictionary, the statute, and common sense all argue
otherwise, we are urged that this court, in Chrysler
Corp. v. Smith, 297 Mich., 438, 298 N.
W., 87, 135 A. L. R., 900, so defined 'establishment' as to require
our holding, as did the circuit judge and the appeal board, that
the Ford Detroit area plants in Michigan and the Ford Canton forge
plant in Ohio were all 1 'establishment.'
"It might be noted at the outset that no such factual situation
was involved in Chrysler Corp. v.
Smith as confronts us here. The plants there
involved were all in 1 industrial community -- the Detroit area;
they were all located within 11 miles of one another; and they were
all located in the state of Michigan. We deal here with a
disqualification argument applicable to nonstriking employees in 3
Detroit area plants, all in Michigan, where the strike inducing the
unemployment occurred in another community 150 miles away, and in
another state.
"* * *
"We now turn our attention to precedents which deal directly
with unemployment compensation cases where it has been argued that
a strike in a plant in 1 state disqualifies those laid
{*224} off as a result in an integrated plant of the same
company in another state.
"In 1949 a strike occurred in the Ford Rouge plant in Michigan.
The effect of that strike was eventually to paralyze production in
a considerable number of Ford assembly plants located in various
states. The workers thus laid off sought unemployment compensation
benefits under statutes quite similar (though in no case identical)
to our own. In these cases, too, there were national issues pending
on the bargaining table between the same union and the same company
as are here involved, and the company arguments for
disqualification of the employees-claimants were based on the
contention that the Rouge plant strike in Michigan was really
carrying forward the industrial argument for the benefit of Ford
union members in New York, Georgia and California, to mention only
the most widely scattered of the plants.
"The cases referred to arose from unemployment claims filed by
workers at Ford plants (most of them assembly plants) at Hapeville,
Georgia (see Ford Motor Co. v.
Abercrombie, 207 Ga., 464, 62 S. E. [2d], 209);
Louisville, Kentucky (see Ford Motor Co. v.
Kentucky Unemployment Compensation Commission
[Ky.], 243 S. W. [2d], 657); Somerville, Massachusetts (see
Ford Motor Co. v. Director of the Division
of Employment Security, 326 Mass., 757, 96 N.E. [2d],
859); St. Paul, Minnesota (see Nordling v.
Ford Motor Co., 231 Minn., 68, 42 N. W. [2d], 576,
28 A. L. R. [2d], 272); Metuchen and Edgewater, New Jersey (see
Ford Motor Co. v. New Jersey Department of
Labor and Industry, 5 N. J., 494, 76 A. [2d], 256);
Buffalo and Green Island, New York (see Machcinski
v. Ford Motor Co., 277 App. Div., 634, 102 N. Y.
S. [2d], 208); Chester, Pennsylvania (see Ford Motor
Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board,
168 Pa. Super., 446, 79 A. [2d], 121); Dallas, Texas (see
Ford Motor Co. v. Texas Employment
Commission, 7 C. C. H. Unemployment Insurance Rep., par.
8148, p. 46,744); and Norfolk, Virginia (see Ford Motor
Co. v. Unemployment Compensation
Commission, 191 Va., 812, 63 S. E. [2d], 28).
"As we have previously noted, compensation was allowed in 8 of
these 9 cases after rejection of the argument that Ford Motor
Company integration rendered the individual far-flung
{*225} plants 1 establishment with the Ford Rouge plant in
Dearborn, Michigan. The exception was the Georgia case, where the
Georgia Supreme Court rejected liberal construction of the
unemployment compensation act and flatly stated with a finality
unhampered by excess concern for fine definition or logic:
"'We therefore hold that the Hapeville plant, at which the
claimants were employed, and the Dearborn parts-producing plant,
where the strike occurred and which compelled cessation of work at
the Hapeville plant, were inseparable and indispensable parts of
one and the same "factory, establishment, or other premises" as
contemplated by those terms as employed in the act now being
construed.' Ford Motor Co. v.
Abercrombie, 207 Ga., 464, 470, 62 S. E. (2d),
209, 215."
In Nordling v. Ford Motor Co.,
231 Minn., 68, 42 N. W. (2d), 576, 28 A. L. R. (2d), 272, a
statement is made, at page 88, concerning the use of the single
word, "establishment," instead of the three terms, "factory,
establishment, or other premises," and is pertinent here as the
writer views the situation:
"Under Section 5(d) of the act proposed by the Social Security
Board and under our original act, the unit of employment within
which the labor dispute must exist in order to disqualify was
designated as the ' factory, establishment, or other
premises at which he is or was last employed.' (Italics
supplied.) Under our present act, Section 268.09, sub 1(6), the
strike or labor dispute must be in progress 'at the
establishment in which he is or was employed.'
(Italics supplied.) It is doubtful that the change in terminology
was intended to enlarge or diminish the unit of employment
affecting the disqualification. It has been held that the words
'factory, establishment, or other premises' in the Alaska act,
which is similar to the federal act, were ejusdem
generis and that the principle of noscitur a
sociis applies. Aragon v.
Unemployment Compensation Comm. (9 Cir.), 149 F.
(2d), 447, supra.
"We are inclined to believe that in our original act the word
'establishment' was intended to include those places of employment
which could not be classified as a factory; that in the amendment
the Legislature concluded that the term 'establishment' was
inclusive of factory and all other types of employer
{*226} units; and that there was no further need to use
the word 'factory.' For a discussion of the distinction between
factory and establishment, see General Motors
Corp. v. Mulquin, 134 Conn., 118, 55 A.
(2d), 732, supra."
It seems clear that the so-called "escape clauses" in the
unemployment compensation law of Michigan had no bearing in the
conclusion which was reached by the Supreme Court of that
state.
Headnote No. 2 quoted above indicates clearly, it is believed,
that those clauses had no bearing on the conclusion or decision in
the Michigan case, supra.
The opinion of the court discloses in greater detail that those
disqualifying clauses in the Michigan law did not influence the
decision.
Section 4141.01, Revised Code, defines "employer" as
follows:
"(A) 'Employer' means any individual or type of organization
including any partnership, association, trust, estate, joint-stock
company, insurance company, or corporation, whether domestic or
foreign, or the receiver, trustee in bankruptcy, trustee, or the
successor thereof, or the legal representative of a deceased person
who subsequent to December 31, 1936, had in employment three or
more individuals at any one time within a calendar year."
"Single employer" is defined in Section 4141.01 as follows:
"All individuals performing services for an employer of any
person in this state who maintains two or more establishments
within this state are employed by a single employer for the purpose
of such sections." (Emphasis added.)
Section 4141.29 provides, with respect to "eligibility for
benefits":
"Each eligible individual shall receive benefits as compensation
for loss of remuneration due to total or involuntary partial
unemployment in the amounts and subject to the conditions
stipulated in Sections 4141.01 to 4141.46, inclusive, of the
Revised Code."
It is further provided, under subdivision (A), Section 4141.29,
that "no individual is entitled to a waiting period or benefits for
any week unless he" meets certain requirements as {*227}
specified in subsections numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, which
subsections are not pertinent here.
Subsection (B) under Section 4141.29 is also not pertinent to
the question under consideration.
Section 4141.29 provides, in part, that:
"(C) Notwithstanding division (A) of this section, no individual
may serve a waiting period or be paid benefits for the duration of
any period of unemployment with respect to which the administrator
finds that such individual:
"* * *
"(2) Lost his employment or has left his employment by reason of
a labor dispute other than a lockout at the factory, establishment,
or other premises at which he was employed, as long as such labor
dispute continues, and thereafter for a reasonable period of time
necessary for such factory or establishment to resume normal
operations."
It is clear that the Legislature intended that a "single
employer" is an employer "who maintains two or more establishments
within this state."
The Legislature did not intend that the definition of a "single
employer" should include an employer who maintains two
establishments located in different states. In order to be a
"single employer," it is essential that the two establishments be
maintained "within this state."
It will be noted that the definition of a "single employer" is
applicable to "such sections," which necessarily includes Section
4141.29 affecting "eligibility for benefits" and also subsection
(C) (2) which precludes benefits if the individual "lost his
employment by reason of a labor dispute other than a lockout at the
factory, establishment, or other premises at which he was employed
* * *."
The definition of "single employer" is limited to an "employer"
who maintains two or more "establishments within the state" and it
does not include an employer who maintains one establishment in
this state and another establishment in the state of Michigan.
It is clear also that the definition of a "single employer" is
not confined or limited to the sections which have reference to
payments which the employer is required to make into the fund,
{*228} but it is also applicable to "such sections" which
govern "eligibility for benefits."
The employer who maintains one establishment in this "state" and
another establishment in the state of Michigan is not a "single
employer" with respect to the individuals employed in "this state"
under "such sections."
Since the employer in this case maintains one establishment in
the state of Michigan and another establishment in "this state,"
such employer is not a "single" or the same employer with respect
to the individuals who lost their employment at the establishment
in "this state" by reason of a labor dispute at the establishment
located in the state of Michigan.
The reason, it would seem, for confining a "single employer" to
an employer "who maintains two or more establishments within this
state" is that the requirements of the unemployment compensation
laws of the states vary and are different, both with respect to
payments into the fund and also with respect to individual
"eligibility for benefits."
The employer and employees at the Michigan establishment are
subject to the requirements of the Michigan unemployment
compensation laws, while the employer and employees in Ohio are
subject to the requirements of the unemployment compensation laws
of "this state."
In the Michigan law, the phrase, "employing unit," is used
instead of the "single employer" used in the Ohio law, otherwise
the definitions are almost identical. (See "employing unit"
above.)
Since the individual claimants in this case did not lose their
employment by reason of a labor dispute "at the factory,
establishment, or other premises" at which they were employed, it
is the conclusion of the writer that the claimants are entitled to
unemployment compensation.
CONCURRENCE FOOTNOTES
1 Nordling v. Ford Motor Co., 231
Minn., 68, 42 N. W. (2d), 576, 28 A. L. R. (2d), 272; Ford
Motor Co. v. Division of Employment
Security, 326 Mass., 757, 96 N.E.2d, 859; Ford
Motor Co. v. New Jersey Dept. of Labor and
Industry, 7 N. J. Super., 30, 71 A. (2d), 727, affirmed, 5
N. J., 494, 76 A. (2d), 256; Ford Motor Co. v.
Kentucky Unemployment Compensation Commission, 243
S. W. (2d), 657; Machcinski v. Ford Motor
Co., 277 App. Div., 634, 102 N. Y. Supp. (2d), 208;
Ford Motor Co. v. Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review, 168 Pa. Super., 446, 79 A.
(2d), 121; Ford Motor Co. v. Unemployment
Compensation Commission, 191 Va., 812, 63 S. E. (2d), 28;
Park v. Appeal Board of Michigan
Employment Security Commission, 355 Mich., 103, 94 N. W.
(2d), 407.
The single case disallowing compensation is Ford Motor
Co. v. Abercrombie, 207 Ga., 464, 62 S.
E. (2d), 209.
The Ohio Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, upon appeals
of Abnie and others, disallowed compensation to claimants who lost
their employment in the Canton and Hamilton, Ohio, plants as a
result of the River Rouge strike in Detroit, on the finding that
the Ohio plants were part of the same "factory, establishment or
other premises" as Ford assembly lines in Detroit. That decision
was not appealed.
2 With the exception of New York, the states wherein those cases
arose all have so-called escape clauses relating to direct or
sympathetic participation in strikes and separate branches of work
as separate units of employment. For example, the Michigan act
provides "that no individual shall be disqualified under this
section if he shall establish that he is not directly involved in
such dispute" unless direct participation be established according
to defined circumstances. The Ohio General Assembly has refused to
enact such socalled "escape" clauses. Cornell,
Admr., v. Bailey, 163 Ohio St., 50, 125
N.E.2d, 323.
3 In Ohio, in the absence of statutory or judicial definition,
the court is privileged to turn to the dictionary.
Richards v. State, 110 Ohio St.,
311, 315, 143 N.E., 714. But in State, ex rel.
Belford, v. Hueston, 44 Ohio St., 1, 7, 4
N.E., 471, Spear, J., says: "Where a word is reconcilable with law
or established custom in the particular manner in which it is used,
a different meaning can not be given to it upon authority of a
lexicographer." See, also, Baker v.
Powhatan Mining Co., 146 Ohio St., 600, 67 N.E.2d,
714; Mutual Bldg. & Investment Co. v.
Efros, 152 Ohio St., 369, 89 N.E.2d, 648.
4 Nordling v. Ford Motor Co.,
supra (231 Minn., 68). Cf. Snook v.
International Harvester Co. (Ky., 1955), 276 S. W.
(2d), 658, disallowing compensation and distinguishing Ford
Motor Co. v. Kentucky Unemployment Compensation
Commission, supra (243 S. W. [2d], 657).
5 In the Ford cases there was a large degree of functional
integrality, but there was absent the factor of physical proximity.
See, also, Tucker v. American Smelting
& Refining Co., 89 Md., 250, 55 A. (2d), 692, holding
that a Utah copper smelter which supplied blister copper to a
Baltimore refinery was not one establishment.
6 Claimants who refuse to cross picket lines are denied
compensation on the ground that they are voluntarily quitting
employment rather than on the ground of participation in the
strike.
7 The acts of several states provide that administrative
findings of fact are conclusive and the reviewing courts do not
consider contra evidence. In Ohio, the reviewing court is required
to determine whether the decision is unreasonable, unlawful or
manifestly against the weight of the evidence.
Brown-Brockmeyer Co. v. Roach,
148 Ohio St., 511, 76 N.E.2d, 79.
8 In Chrysler Corp. v. Smith
(1941), 297 Mich., 438, 298 N. W., 87, 135 A. L. R., 900 (now
modified if not overruled in Park v.
Appeal Board, supra), various coordinated plants
synchronized and employed within an area of eleven miles were held
to be a single establishment. In Park v.
Appeal Board, supra (355 Mich., 103), the Canton,
Ohio, forge plant was over 150 miles from the Rouge plant. In
General Motors Corp. v. Mulquin
(1947), 134 Conn., 118, 55 A. (2d), 732, disallowing compensation,
the two plants were eighteen miles apart. In
Spielman v. Industrial Commission
(1940), 236 Wis., 240, 295 N. W., 1, disallowing compensation, the
plants were 40 miles apart. In Snook v.
International Harvester Co., supra (276 S. W.
[2d], 658), the plants were in the same immediate vicinity. In
McGee v. Timken Roller Bearing
Co. (1956, Ohio Court of Appeals, Fifth Appellate
District), disallowing compensation, the plants were ninety miles
apart.
In a case arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Supreme Court of the United States has recognized the factor of
integrated work as a test. Rutherford Food Corp.
v. McComb, Admr. (1947), 331 U.S., 722, 726, 91 L.
Ed., 1772, 67 S. Ct., 1473.
9 Alexander Besozzi, Appeals Docket No. 124367, involving
disinterested employees of a coal mine, whose entire output was
used by Universal Sewer Pipe, who were idled by a strike of
clayworkers. Dorothy L. Bradford, Appeals Docket No. 12811,
benefits denied to employees of Deisel-Wemmer Corp. in Van Wert,
incident to a strike in the Lima unit which prevented transfer of
materials for manufacture of cigars at Van Wert. Theodore L. Turcy,
Appeals Docket No. 12634, a claimant employed in Ohio and West
Virginia as a circulation supervisor of the Pittsburgh Press, who
became unemployed due to a strike in the trucking and mailing
department of the newspaper in Pittsburgh. Anna L. Adams, Appeals
Docket No. 74836, Galion, Ohio, unit supplying material to a Mt.
Gilead unit halted by a strike at Galion plant. John H. Bell,
Appeal Docket No. 119996, another case involving layoff of an
employee in a sewer pipe manufacturing company as a result of a
strike at employer's coal mine 13 miles away. Lois
McKee v. Timken Co., Appeals Docket No.
38517, reversed upon appeal to Common Pleas Court which in turn was
reversed by Court of Appeals, May 14, 1956. Cleve Abnie, Appeals
Docket No. 114192, employees of Ford Canton and Hamilton, Ohio,
plants laid off as a result of the Ford strike at the main plant in
Michigan.
See, also, 10 Ohio State Law Journal, 244 et
seq.
10 See subparagraph (B) (1) (a) and (b) of Section 4141.01,
Revised Code, relating to casual or other employment outside
Ohio.
11 Cases in other jurisdictions allowing compensation have
referred to somewhat similar definitions as indicative of a
legislative intention to treat two or more establishments as
separate units of employment, but none of these decisions (with the
possible exception of Park v. Appeal
Board) have construed the provision as ipso
facto excluding from the labor dispute disqualification
provision a part of an establishment located in another state.
Ford v. New Jersey Dept. of Labor &
Industry, supra ; Nordling v.
Ford Motor Co., supra ; Ford Motor
Co. v. Kentucky Unemployment Compensation
Commission, supra ; Park v.
Appeal Board, supra.
12 See, also, Unemployment Compensation Commission of
Alaska v. Aragon (1946), 329 U.S., 143,
91 L. Ed., 136, 67 S. Ct., 245; and American Hawaiian
Steamship Co. v. California Employment
Comm. (1942), 128 P. (2d), 627, affirmed, 24 Cal. (2d),
716, 151 P. (2d), 213.
13 In Allen v. Youngstown Municipal Ry.
Co. (1954), 72 Ohio Law Abs., 35, bus operators went on
strike without setting up picket lines or doing anything to prevent
other employees from reporting for work. Maintenance employees who
involuntarily lost their employment by reason of the labor dispute
were held disqualified, the court stating: "The law makes no
difference between individuals who are actively on strike and those
who innocently lose their work because of a strike. Both were
disqualified."
14 The overruling of the motion to certify that case of course
did not constitute an affirmance of that decision, but it indicates
that the Supreme Court did not regard the question therein decided
as of sufficient public or great general interest to allow the
motion.