Section 29(8)
LABOR DISPUTE, Lockout, Notice requirement, Fair Employment Practices Act
CITE AS: Metropolitan Detroit Plumbing & Mechanical Contractors Association v ESC, 425 Mich 407 (l986).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Paul G. Beauvais, et al
Employer: Glanz & Killian, Inc.
Docket No: B75 7176 61578
SUPREME COURT HOLDING: The notice provision of the Michigan Labor Mediation Act is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, and thus may not be construed to permit payment of unemployment compensation in this case.
FACTS: On May 31, 1974, the contract between the Union and the Association expired. The parties agreed to continue work on a day-to-day basis. During July, two Association members alleged that they were the "objects of selective strike action." On July 29, 1974, a lockout by members of the Association went into effect. Individual employees were notified of the lockout upon reporting to work on July 31, 1974. They were not given the ten day notice required by the Michigan Labor Mediation Act.
DECISION: The claimants are disqualified because of the labor dispute.
RATIONALE: In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held: "The notice provision of the Michigan Labor Mediation Act is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act, and thus may not be construed to permit payment of unemployment compensation in this case. A lockout is one form of labor dispute which will disqualify a worker from receiving unemployment benefits where, as in this case, the unemployment was due to a labor dispute in which the worker was directly involved. The association was not required to give a ten-day notice before instituting the lockout, and the employees are not entitled to unemployment compensation." But cf. Baker v General Motors Corp, 420 Mich 563 (l984); Aff'd, 54 LW 5037 (l986).
11/90
7, 14, d3:NA