Court Opinion

ID: 9625307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:35:55.606943+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:05.941449
License: Public Domain

STANFORD, Justice
(dissenting).
I cannot agree with the conclusion of the majority opinion. The trial court had *202the power to overturn the decision of the Commission if it contained an error of law. Section 56-1011n(7), A.C.A.1939, as amended, 1952 Supplement. The Commission found that claimants in this case were eligible for compensation and were not disqualified by any of the provisions of Section 56-1005, A.C.A.1939, as amended, 1952 Supplement. They were not disqualified by subsection (d), which pertains to labor disputes, because there was no labor dispute at the place of their employment. There was no disqualification under subsection (c), which pertains to failure to accept suitable work, because that clause is applicable only to cases here the unemployed individual fails to commence an employer-employee relationship where none previously exists — it does not apply to a refusal to continue work for an employer. There was no disqualification under subsection (a), which pertains to voluntary quits, because the claimants left their work for a good cause. The picket line is a recognized weapon of the laboring man and when a worker violates it, he disgraces himself in the eyes of his fellow workers. An employer who hires union workers is well aware of this fact. I do not think that the voluntary quit clause applies to the instant situation.
There being no error of law in the decision of the Commission, I think the judgment should be reversed and the decision of the Commission upheld.