Opinion

In Re the Employees of Buffelen Lumber & Manufacturing Co.

  • 32 Wash. 2d 205
  • 201 P.2d 194
  • 1948 Wash. LEXIS 353
Court
Washington Supreme Court
Filed
Dec 29, 1948
Status
Published
Author
Schwellenbach
On the bench
Simpson, Schwellenbach
Cited by
43 cases

Overruled on other grounds by Shoreline Community College District No. 7 v. Employment Security Department, 120 Wash. 2d 394 (1993)

Later courts went against this

  • Overruled on other grounds by Shoreline Community College District No. 7 v. Employment Security Department, 120 Wash. 2d 394 (1993)

    Co., 32 Wn.2d 205, 209, 201 P.2d 194 (1948), overruled on other grounds by Shoreline Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 7 v. Employment Sec. Dep’t, 120 Wn.2d 394, 842 P.2d 938 (1992)).
    Washington Supreme CourtFeb 4, 1993other groundsmedium confidenceRead it

The opinion

Schwellenbach, J.

(concurring) — The union was the exclusive bargaining agency for all employees of appellants. This included not only those employees who were employed at the time the bargaining agency agreement was entered into, but also any who might enter the employ of the company while the agreement was effective. The union spoke for the employees; it was their voice. In reality, the employees themselves, speaking through the union, made the agreement.

On June 29, 1945, all of the employees, speaking through the union, agreed with the company that such of them who would have been on the pay roll for one year prior to the vacation date should be granted one week’s vacation with pay, and such of them who would have been on the pay roll for five years prior to the vacation date should be granted two weeks’ vacation. In order to grant these vacations, all of the employees, speaking through their union, agreed with their employer that it might, to suit its convenience, either stagger such vacations, or it might close down the entire plant for two weeks. The employer chose to do the latter.

The agreement is silent as to those employees who would not be entitled to vacations with pay of either one or two weeks, and our problem is to determine whether or not, as to them, they were unemployed voluntarily or involuntarily, when the plant was closed down. They were unemployed during the weeks in question because they per

*212

formed no services and with respect to which no remuneration was payable to them. The plant was closed down as a result of the agreement made with the company by all of the employees, including these claimants. Their unemployment during that period, therefore, was voluntary, and they are not entitled to unemployment compensation.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.