Case ID: so2d_792/html/0431-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge. CRAWLEY, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS et al.
    2990993 to 2991001.
    Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.
    Oct. 20, 2000.
    Certiorari Denied Feb. 16, 2001 Alabama Supreme Court 1000245.
    William F. Gardner and Joseph V. Mus-so of Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O’Neal, Birmingham; and Braxton W. Ashe and J. Michael Tanner of Ashe, Tanner, Wright & Kelley, Tuscumbia, for appellant.
    Frank D. Marsh, general counsel, State Department of Industrial Relations, for appellee.
   ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge.

These nine consolidated appeals from judgments of the Colbert County Circuit Court arise from the same facts as those presented in Reynolds Metals Co. v. State Dep’t of Industrial Relations, 792 So.2d 419 (Ala.Civ.App.2000) (“Reynolds I ”), which involved consolidated appeals from a circuit court in an adjacent county. On the authority of Reynolds I, we conclude that the Department of Industrial Relations, as a matter of law, properly awarded unemployment-compensation benefits to the workers involved in these nine cases, and that the trial court’s summary judgments are due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

YATES, MONROE, and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

CRAWLEY, J., dissents.

CRAWLEY, Judge,

dissenting.

I dissent on the same grounds as I dissented in Reynolds Metals Co. v. State Dep’t of Indus. Rel., 792 So.2d 419 (Ala.Civ.App.2000) (Crawley, J., dissenting). 
      
      . Stewart Fuller; Joel Retherford; Jimmy Booker; Gene Whitlock; James E. Brown; Percy T. Glover; Sandra Cheatham; Billy Aday; and William Hester.
     
      
      . There is evidence that two of the workers (Billy Aday and William Hester) submitted affidavits in the trial court in which they stated that they were not offered employment by Wise although they had sought such employment. However, as in Reynolds I, that evidence has not been argued as a separate basis for affirming the judgments in those workers’ cases, and we do not address the effect of that evidence.