HILL, APPELLEE,
vs.
BOARD OF
REVIEW, OHIO BUREAU OF
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, ET
AL.,
APPELLANTS. RODEMAN, APPELLEE, v. BOARD
OF
REVIEW, OHIO BUREAU
OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, ET
AL., APPELLANTS
Nos. 53549, 53550
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA
COUNTY
529 N.E.2d 1288, 39 Ohio App. 3d 131
October 6, 1987, Decided
HEADNOTE
Unemployment compensation -- Members of one union "locked
out" because of strike by another union -- Members of first union
entitled to benefits.
SYLLABUS
When an employer shuts down a job because of a labor dispute it has
with a labor union that is on strike, members of another union
which is not on strike are "locked out" and are consequently
entitled to unemployment compensation benefits.
COUNSEL
Shapiro, Turoff, Gisser & Belkin and
Alan Belkin, for appellees Steven C. Hill and
Donald J. Rodeman.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., attorney
general, and Jeffrey B. Duber, for appellants.
JUDGES
MARKUS, P.J., WALKER and BRAME, JJ., concur. ROBERT D. WALKER, J.,
of the Court of Common Pleas of Hancock County, and MICHAEL A.
BRAME, J., of the Court of Common Pleas of Vinton County, sitting
by assignment.
AUTHOR: PER CURIAM
OPINION
{*131} These matters have been consolidated for hearing as
both cases involve identical facts and issues. The facts are
simplicity itself.
The appellees are roofers, members of Local 44, Cleveland
Roofers and Waterproofers Union. Barrier Roofing, a Canton-based
concern, was the successful bidder on a roofing job in Cuyahoga
County. Barrier Roofing, which ordinarily hires roofers from the
Akron-Canton Roofers Union, Local 88, hired a composite crew of
roofers from both Local 88 and Local 44 to complete the Cuyahoga
County job.
Barrier Roofing was a signatory to a contract with Local 88.
When Local 88 went on strike against Barrier Roofing, Barrier
Roofing advised the members of Local 44, working on the Cuyahoga
County project, that due to the strike by Local 88, the Cuyahoga
County job was being shut down and that Local 44 members were not
to come to work. In the letter sent by Barrier Roofing to the Ohio
Bureau of Employment Services, it can clearly be seen that the
appellees (among others, all members of Local 44) were laid
off.
When appellees applied for unemployment benefits because of the
job shutdown, the appellants denied their claims. The Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas reversed, ordering compensation to be
paid to appellees. This appeal ensued as the appellants contend
that the inability of the appellees to work is due to a labor
dispute.
We affirm.
That there was a labor dispute involving Local 88 is not an
issue. That Local 44 members were "laid off" when Barrier Roofing
shut down the Cuyahoga County job is equally not in issue. The
letter addressed to the appellants by the employer, Barrier
Roofing, should be given the credence to which it is entitled.
Clearly, Barrier Roofing "locked out" all employees at the Cuyahoga
County job. A "strike" occurs when the employees cease to work as a
coercive measure to force employers to make concessions or to grant
benefits to the employees. Here the employer simply shut down the
job, thus "locking out" all employees including those employees who
were not engaged in any work cessation.
Both parties cite Abrendts v.
. OhioValleyHospital Assn.
(1985), 17 Ohio St. 3d 11, 17 OBR 9, 476 N.E.2d 1027.
{*132} The appellants' reliance on that case is misplaced.
While it is true that here there was in fact a strike (by Local
88), there was no intimation of a strike by Local
44.
The ruling of the lower court is properly
based on Justice Holmes' concurring opinion in
Abrendts. Certainly motivation is a factor. That
Barrier Roofing withheld work from Local 44 employees (here the
appellees) is well within the definition of a "lockout."
There being a lockout, the unemployment of
the appellees entitles them to unemployment compensation
benefits.
Judgment
affirmed.
DISPOSITION
Judgment
affirmed.