 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Alsip v. Klosterman Baking Co.8/14/1996
MARIANNA BROWN BETTMAN, Presiding Judge.
This is an appeal from the denial of unemployment compensation benefits. The claimants are Timothy Alsip and forty-seven other employees of the Klosterman Baking Company. They applied for unemployment compensation benefits in connection with a work stoppage which began June 19, 1994. After a hearing before a hearing officer of the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services ("OBES"), the Administrator of the OBES issued a decision which held that the employees were not entitled to unemployment benefits during the work stoppage. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review ("board") affirmed this decision. The claimants appealed to the court of common pleas, which found the decision of the board to be lawful, reasonable and not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and accordingly upheld the denial of benefits. This appeal ensued. Appellants are the claimants; appellees are Klosterman and the Administrator of the OBES.
Klosterman is a wholesale baker of breads and rolls. Klosterman and Local No. 57 of the Bakery, Confectionery & Tobacco Workers Union ("Union") had entered into a collective-bargaining agreement ("original CBA") which was in effect from September 1990 through September 25, 1993. In anticipation of thsexpiration of the original CBA, on August 25, 1993, Klosterman and the Union entered into negotiations. The parties met six times before the contract expired. On August 25, 1993, Klosterman submitted a proposal for a one-year contract which included reductions in wages based upon what Klosterman claimed was necessary due to the financial condition of the company. Klosterman unilaterally implemented this proposal on September 24, 1993, one day before the original CBA was due to expire.
During the negotiations, neither party offered or requested to continue operating according to the terms and conditions of the original CBA beyond its expiration date of September 25, 1993. However, the company vice-president testified that when the Union was told that the employer proposal was to be implemented, the Union "suggested that they wanted to continue negotiations, however, they didn't have an economic counter-proposal that was, that warranted, quite frankly."
Although the Union had taken a strike vote and was willing to go out on strike at the expiration of the contract, the union employees worked under the terms of the unilaterally implemented employer proposal continuously from September 25, 1993, until June 19, 1994. There was no evidence in the record that they entered into any written or verbal agreement to do so.
Negotiations between the parties resumed on June 16, 1994. Dissatisfied with the course of negotiations and frustrated with the amount of overtime its members were working, the Union decided to engage in a work stoppage, and so informed the company on June 19, 1994.
Klosterman hired temporary replacement workers and has continued operations. The company at all times has maintained that work was available to union employees under the terms of the employer proposal of September 24, 1993. All the striking employees indicated on their application for determination of unemployment benefits that they expected to return to work at Klosterman.
In their first and third assignments of error, the claimants argue that the trial court abused its discretion in finding the decision of the board lawful, reasonable, and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Specifically, thsclaimants argue that the trial court erred in failing to find the decision of the board that the claimants ar
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|