Court Opinion

ID: 9570811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:26:36.313985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:53.782257
License: Public Domain

Scott, Justice
(dissenting).
It appears that the representative of the commissioner disregarded the totality of evidence presented and I would, therefore, reverse the decision which partially disqualifies claimants from receiving unemployment benefits.
An appeal tribunal of the Department of Manpower Services, after taking testimony, made the following decision:
“On June 12, 1972 the claimants were involuntarily separated from their employment because of a lockout; they are not disqualified for benefits; the maximum benefit amount payable to them is not reduced because of said separation from employment; and benefits paid, if any, to the claimants shall be charged to the employer’s experience rating account.”
The majority opinion correctly states that “[o]n June 12, 1972, the claimants reported to the construction site intending to go to work. However, the site was picketed and none of the claimants went through picket line.” Although this statement is accurate to the extent of its effect, it fails to go further in an analysis of the evidence contained in the record and considered by the appeal tribunal. When claimant Thomas D. Nelson was duly sworn, he was asked:
“Q. Could you state what you felt happened.
“A. Because the gates were locked out therefore, I was in a sense unemployed. But I did not voluntarily quit, I was not fired or nothing. They just locked the gates and that was it.
* % * * *
“Q. Or they never did open the gates. You were around there how long?
“A. Well I stayed there considerably that morning and several days afterwards I came back just to check and they were still locked those times. Bach time I came back and that gates were still locked. And in fact the last day of the strike we came back to work because there was no pickets, there was not a single picket on the job site, we all reported, *526got to the gate and the gates were still locked and they refused to open the gates for us. We all hád to turn around and go home and they even came out on nationwide television that night and said that they were sorry the gates were locked but they were not ready to handle the men yet. And so there, I mean when they come right out over nation * *
Mr. Alexander Kober also testified under like circumstances:
“A. On the 12th I went down there to go to work and I was just turned back. There was nothing to do, no place to go but just jump in your car and go home, that’s all. There’s no use trying to get into the plant everything was locked up.
“Q. And you noticed the pickets. You weren’t asked to cross the line.
“A. I didn’t even see the picket line. I was down there, there was a lot of people just around there and it was impossible for anybody to get into the plant site, so we just took it for granted we didn’t have no chance.
“Q. You figured you were locked out.
“A. Oh sure I was locked out.”
Bob Schiel testified:
“* * * Who ordered the gate locked I don’t really know. Whether it was Northern States Power that ordered the gate locked or — just who it was. But that was the situation. Even our superintendents did not you know know what the reason was. They knew the gate was locked. A couple of the guys went down to telephone to use their phone down there and the guard let ’em in to use the phone but they couldn’t go to work though.”
Claimant Robert DuBois stated:
“* * * So I called National Valves office that morning, that’s when I heard over the news that the strike was on and nothing was said about National Valve being on strike or picketing so I called on the phone * * *.
“About eight o’clock in the morning. I don’t think anybody was here before eight or not much before. And I talked to the girl in the office, I guess evidently Brian or whoever’s in charge over there was busy and I asked if they were working today and she replied, no, the plant is shut down. So she said, there was no sense of coming down. And after the strike was over I also called back again and I asked when to come back to work. And they said that they had just a skeleton crew, that they weren’t ready to hire the full crew back.”
*527All the above testimony was uncontradicted and was apparently disregarded by the representative of the commissioner.
Minn. St. 1971, § 268.09, subd. 1(1), provides that an individual shall be disqualified “[i]f such individual voluntarily and without good cause attributable to the employer discontinued his employment * * Certainly, under these facts and circumstances the employees did not voluntarily leave their employment. It is true that they did not cross the picket line, but through no fault of their own the gates were locked and all work had ceased until the strike was over. The employer neither indicated that it would have employment for them, nor did it actually have employment for them. Any evidence before us of any contact with the employer indicates that this employer said that all work had stopped. Assuming that the employer may have also been a victim of circumstances, such a situation does not preclude the law from operating as intended. The statutory definition of the word “lockout” as the refusal of the employer to furnish work to employees as a result of a labor dispute must control. Minn. St. 179.01, subd. 9. We are faced with that type of conduct here.
The' appeal tribunal’s holding seems to be the only appropriate conclusion to carry out the legislative declaration that “[ijnvoluntary unemployment is therefore a subject of general interest and concern which requires appropriate action by the legislature to prevent its spread and to lighten its burdens. This can be provided by encouraging employers to provide more stable employment and by the systematic accumulation of funds during periods of employment to provide benefits for periods of unemployment, thus maintaining purchasing power and limiting the serious social consequences of poor relief assistance.” Minn. St. 268.03.
It is this substantial evidence which leads me to believe that statutory intent would be carried out by reversal.
Todd, Justice (dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Mr. Justice Scott.
MacLaughlin, Justice (dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Mr. Justice Scott.
Yetka, Justice (dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Mr. Justice Scott.
Mr. Justice Knutson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.