The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1953-06-19

IN Lne Lnlf0 Il0Qlng, ana the 1iIIuiil
itself, / cannot agree that the ref
cree was correct. have searched tn
record assiduously and | find moth
ing to indicate that this claimant wa
ever employed as picket. | find tina
in his questioning the attorney fol
Manion, Mr. Warden, attempted tt
leave that impression, and that he
apparently impressed the referee, fol
there is the reflection of that notion
in the questions of the referee. But
the record is completely clarified or
that point, both by the claimant and
by the witness for the union.
cit is common practice of I'M
ions to pay strike benefits to mem
bers when and where they are able.
If this Commission is to hold that
those benefits are pay for the SER
vices the striking worker renders
to himself and his union during the
strike procedure, it will nullify that
portion of the law which holds
that a work stoppage growing out
of an employer violation of federal
or state law does not render the
worker ineligible.
SIN any strike that would come
within the provisions of Section 81
LOG Id Revised Codes of Montana,
L947, the union would have to fore
20 the custom of paying strike bene-
its to members, or this ruling of
he Commission would render such
members ineligible for benefits. Ger
ainly, nothing so absurd and contra
iictory was ever intended by the law.
70 so hold, is to throw the weight
# the Unemployment Law into the
economic struggle on the side of the
Employer in this strike situation
result never intended by the sta
ute making eligible for benefits,
hose workers who are unemployed
n a strike resulting from violation
# state or national law by their en-
'loyer.
"There is no justification in the
ecord of the hearing before the
eferee and this Commission for the
bird finding. On many occasions
throughout the hearing, the claim
mt himself, and the representative of
he union, Mr.. Gabriel, repeated that
he strike benefit was not payment
or service of picketing. The deliber-
tie attempt to confuse the strike
enefit with the picket service by the
counsel is obvious from
eading the record. But the benefit
und is Grand Lodge (IAM) fund,
nd the representatives of the Grand |
odge, both at the hearing, and be-
ore this Commission itself, were
ear and explicit as to the function !
nd disbursement of benefit funds. |
hey testified that members who did
OF picket were paid from benefit
unds, and this claimant himself, |
.stified that he was paid benefits
/. times when he was not picketing
I'D was sick. He also testified that
: was not paid benefits regularly,
1T whenever disbursement wa
ade. 1t stretches the testimony be-
md credulity to support the third
nding of the referee.
anyone with rudimentary knowl-
ige of labor unions is aware that
exciting is the collective exercise of
zee speech, and is joint individual
;tion of the membership announcing
the public the fact of the strike.
is no service to any employer when
union member engages in picket
lty. And the same rudimentary
lowledge of union and lodge activity
all that is necessary to understand
e functions and purpose of the pick
fund. 1t is error to confuse the two
motions, and it is arbitrary and un-
asonable to persist in that con-
Ision in the face of the testim ony
the record in this case.
"Thus, even were the referee cor.
ct in making his findings and de-
sion upon matters completely be-
md the scope and basis for appeal
rtified by the employer in this case,
5 findings are at odds with the
cts and the law :. :"