LABOR DISPUTE, Misconduct discharge, Contract penalty, Statutory construction
CITE AS: Linski v ESC, 358 Mich 239 (1959).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: William Linski
Employer: Wood Fabricating Co.
Docket No: B57 1602 19509
SUPREME COURT HOLDING: Where there is in the same statute a specific provision, and also a general one which would include matters embraced in the former, the rule of statutory construction requires application of the specific section, as opposed to the general section.
FACTS: Appellant was the union steward. He was discharged after calling a strike which was unauthorized by the union, and in violation of the contract.
DECISION: The claimant is disqualified under the labor dispute section of the Act.
RATIONALE: "The statute provides 2 alternative disqualification provisions possibly applicable to the present situation. The labor dispute disqualification is specific. The misconduct disqualification is more general ... The most ordinary rule of statutory construction demands application of the specific section, as opposed to the general section.
"On the surface of this matter, the episode we deal with has all of the appearances of a labor dispute ... We do not hold that a finding that a labor dispute exists necessarily excludes application of the misconduct penalty. What would be misconduct is not cured by the fact that it occurred in the course of a labor dispute. What we deal with here, however, is peaceful cessation of work. Claimant's action is termed wrong because it was not in accordance with the terms of the contract concerned. The record discloses this to be true. And the record also shows that the contract penalty of discharge has been applied. We can find no warrant for adding to the contract penalty for breach still another penalty not squarely spelled out in the statute. See T. R. Miller Mill Co., Inc., v Johns, 261 Ala 615."