Document: 329 U.S. 143 67 S.Ct. 245. 91 L.Ed. 136 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION OF TERRITORY ALASKA et al.v.ARAGAN al. No. 25. Reargued Nov. 13, 1946. Decided Dec. 9, [Syllabus from pages 143-145 intentionally omitted] Mr.Marshall P. Madison, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioners. Mr. Herbert Resner, respondents. The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion Court. 1 In May, 1940, individual respondents filed claims unemployment benefits with Unemployment Compensation Commission Territory Alaska. After an initial determination by examiner and after decision a referee held that claimants were disqualified receiving period eight weeks since their was due to labor dispute n active progress within meaning Alaska Law.1 United States District Court affirmed Commission's holding in all particulars. Circuit Appeals reversed, one judge dissenting. We granted certiorari because public importance questions involved.2 2 Among petitioners are three corporations engaged principally business salmon fishing, canning, marketing. One companies owns canneries other facilities at Karluk, Chignik, Bristol Bay, two operate only Bay. Catching canning is seasonal activity.3 customarily hire workers Francisco beginning season, transport them Alaskan establishments, return season's end. Similar operations carried on out west coast ports, notably Seattle Portland. members Cannery Workers Union Local 5, each worked during 1939 season. 5 recognized bargaining agent cannery area. 3 1939, as had been practice some years, union entered into written agreement covering considerable detail matters wages, hours, conditions employment, like. end terminated then effect, which made necessary negotiation new contract 1940 Consequently, March 6, through authorized agent, Salmon Industry, Inc., invited enter negotiations agreement. series meetings shortly thereafter, serious disagreement appeared quickly developed impasse question wages. demanded wages equal or excess those paid under terms offered most part below 1939. On April 1, caused wage issue be transferred where attempt being effect coastwide cover carrying however, refused sign 'memorandum' incorporating such might result concurrent negotiations. 4 3, notified if Karluk Chignik respect former would have reached 10 latter 12. Although proceeded up deadlines, parties arrived no understanding, 22 formally announced 1940. Meetings continued, effort come understanding Bay before arrival May 3d deadline set operations. federal mediators intervened d scover suitable compromise, date passed without It appears continued affecting canners operating ports than finally executed 29. involved this case specifically excluded Shortly Commission. Commission, acting examiner, payments statutory provisions § 5(d) law. At time arose, section stated part: 'An shall * (d) For any week finds his total partial factory, establishment premises he last employed; provided, disqualification not exceed 8 immediately following *' 6 pursuance appeal statute,4 asked review examiner's determination. response application, appointed Referee pass disputed claims. scope hearings confined whether existence dispute. proceedings, came conclusion although there initially, longer 'in progress' passing dates fixed consummation working agreements. localities attach passage respective dates.5 7 appeal,6 reversed Referee's law, throughout entire opening season locality. payable until expiration period. particulars.7 Appeals, dissenting, ground physically employed. met outset contention facts do present 'labor dispute' Act. Respondents urge term must narrowl construed require strike leaving employment which, turn, calls presently-existing relation arises.8 According view, situation, presented here, controversy precedes employment. justify restricted construction Law remedial legislation, provision limiting Act should narrowly interpreted. 9 dispute', defined statute. connection, however. Section 5(c)(2)(A) provides will denied individual, otherwise eligible, who refuses accept work 'if position vacant directly strike, lockout, dispute.' Social Security 19359 requires state territorial law contain legislation can approved Board. Obviously, purposes 5(c)(2)(A), term, dispute,' has broader attributed it Unless Territorial Legislature intended give different same language appearing another subdivision section, given contended respondents, well. need determine cases broadly Norris-LaGuardia Act,10 National Labor Relations Act.11 But here full-scale controversy. Companies ranged against representing employed previous year. Dispute certainly was; subject consisted usually contested disputes normally understood.12 Since we find nothing indicate contrary result, conclude properly think evidence record support respondents' 'due' insofar relates Packers Association Red Canning Company. attempted establish called off reasons inability negotiate satisfactory argued, example, feared poor catch governmental restrictions fishing applicable adduced indicates both above-mentioned extensive preparations anticipation, equipment supplies value several hundred thousand dollars purchased. Ships prepared readiness expeditions. found these negotiated good faith failed agreements dates. There expected about two-thirds number action unemployed contemplated curtailment activity affected, unemployed. Company use possibly few more. Under circumstances, finding dispute, stand, indicated. 11 situation reference That company 30, days relating operations, withdrew unable send expedition withdrawal primarily factors company's contract. Referee, counsel stipulated even though date, conducted its does 12 that, assuming 'active argued when expeditions abandoned companies, necessarily possible way could brought settlement. observed, t reveal abruptly date. Conferences represented. considered sufficiently alive make offer least late Even assumed point possibility settlement disappeared, follow overturned. Here, Board v. Hearst Publications, 1944, 322 111, 131, 64 851, 860, 861, 88 1170, 'is specific application broad proceeding agency administering statute initially.' To sustain reasonable arisen first instance judicial proceedings. 'reviewing court's function limited'. All needed interpretation 'warrant record' 'reasonable basis law'. supra; Rochester Telephone Corporation States, 307 125, 59 754, 83 1147. 13 Applying tests, say irrational record. apparently views 'active' continuance stoppage induced reasonably resulting 'involuntary' nature designed alleviate, indicated statement policy incorporated Legislature.13 see view our substituting entrusted responsibility statute.14 14 Nor argument majority between Seattle, said 'at' establishments required So far able determine, injected Appeals. seem raised pressed point. applying particular A reviewing court usurps agency's sets aside administrative theretofore deprives opportunity consider matter, ruling, action.15 advanced convincing merits. clear matter related operation establishments. As normal activities catching significant fact did ships waters. legislature familiar hardly unaware distant seems unlikely ordinary usual procedure defeat Furthermore, observed respondent voluntarily challenged propriety practice. Thus assume consideration, circumstances 'at establishment, premises' sense Legislature. 15 stated, judgment holds eight-week inapplicable particulars, remanded instructions remand further proceedings pursuant opinion. 16 Affirmed part. Extraordinary Session Laws Alaska, 1937, Chapter amended Chapters 51, alaska legislative scheme compensation 1935. 49 Stat. 620, 626—627, 640, 42 U.S.C.A. 301 seq. forty-three states territories similar disqualifying persons provided Benefit Regulation extends September 10, August 6(c) 6(d). opened, opened there, plants. This 6(e) 6(i) thirty become final, party aggrieved may secure states, 'In Section, findings facts, supported absence fraud, conclusive, jurisdiction law.' courts construing disputes' existed situations contractual presently existed. Each interval old Miners General Group Hix, 1941, 123 W.Va. 637, 17 S.E.2d 810; Ex parte Pesnell, 240 Ala. 457, 199 So. 726; Barnes Hall, 285 Ky. 160, 146 S.W.2d 929; Block Coal & Coke Co. Mine America, 177 Tenn. 247, 148 364, 149 469; Sandoval Industrial Comm., 1942, 110 Colo. 108, 130 P.2d 930. 26 U.S.C. 1603(5)(A), Int.Rev.Code, 1603(a) (5)(A). 47 70, 29 101, 101. contains definition: 'The includes concerning association representation negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, seeking arrange regardless disputants stand proximate employer employee.' 73, 113(c), 113(c). definition Act, 151 seq., persuasive Alabama act. Ala.Code, Tit. 214(A). 449, 151, 151. Examiner, Court, presumably existed, 'Declaration Public Policy' 'Involuntary general interest concern appropriate legislature.' welfare demands compulsory setting reserves 'for benefit fault own.' 4, 1937. Several concluded reflection compensate involuntarily Deshler Broom Factory Kinney, 140 Neb. 889, N.W.2d 332; supra. Cf. Nierotko, 1946, 327 358, 66 162 A.L.R. 1445. 6(h) 'shall permitted claiming thereby exhausted remedies Act.' Myers Bethlehem Shipbuilding Co., 1938, 303 41, 50, 58 459, 463, 464, 82 638; Regal Knitwear Board, 1945, 324 65 478, 481, 89 661; Phelps Dodge 313 177, 196, 197, 61 845, 853, 854, 85 1271, 133 1217.

Category: 6