[DOWNLOAD] "Raleigh v. State" by Supreme Court of Florida # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Raleigh v. State
- Author : Supreme Court of Florida
- Release Date : January 01, 2006
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 66 KB
Description
The plaintiff in error, M.A. Ferst, Ltd., herein referred to as the employer, filed its petition in the Superior Court of Fulton County against the defendants in error, Ben T. Huiet, as Commissioner of Labor of the State of Georgia, herein referred to as the commissioner, and Carrie Singleton and others, herein referred to as the employees, under and by virtue of § 54-619 of the Code (Ann. Supp.), excepting to the finding of the Board of Review (provided for by the Unemployment Compensation Law), upholding the decision of the appeals referee to the effect that the employees are eligible for benefits. The contentions of the employer as disclosed by its petition are as follows: "(a) The Board of Review erred in holding that each of the claimants was eligible for benefits in view of the evidence which clearly shows that the unemployment of the claimants was due to a stoppage of work which exists because of a labor dispute at the factory or establishment at which they were last employed, in which dispute the claimants were participating and financing, and were directly interested, and claimants belonged to a grade or class of workers of which immediately before the commencement of the stoppage there were members employed at the premises at which the stoppage occurred, any of whom were participating in and financing and were directly interested in the dispute, and that the stoppage of work due to a labor dispute continues. (b) The Board of Review erred in construing the phrase, Stoppage of work which exists because of a labor dispute at the factory, establishment or other premises at which he was last employed, as used in Sec. 54-610(d) of the Code of Georgia Annotated, to mean a stoppage of operations by the employer and not a stoppage of work by the employees themselves, and by holding that, therefore, where the employer manages to resume operations, the disqualification of the striking employees is removed, even though the labor dispute has not ceased and the striking employees admittedly stopped work because of such labor dispute. (c) The findings of fact by the Board of Review are not complete, in that it omitted the following facts brought out by the evidence, to wit: that all of the claimants were striking employees and had stopped work because of a labor dispute which existed at the factory or establishment at which they were last employed; that all of the claimants were represented in such labor dispute and in such strike by a duly certified bargaining agent, to wit, Local No. 315 of the Wholesale, Retail and Department Store Union, affiliated with the C.I.O.; and that such bargaining agent called a strike and immediately notified the employer that a strike had been called; and that such strike has never been called off or terminated by the bargaining agent and it is still officially in progress, although the employer has managed to resume operations. Only the picketing has ceased, and this may be resumed at any time by the Union. The claimants stoppage of work was, therefore, due to a labor dispute which continues, even though the employers operations have been resumed."