Widmar v. United States Steel Corporation

105 So. 2d 716, 39 Ala. App. 547
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 17, 1958
Docket6 Div. 568
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 105 So. 2d 716 (Widmar v. United States Steel Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Widmar v. United States Steel Corporation, 105 So. 2d 716, 39 Ala. App. 547 (Ala. Ct. App. 1958).

Opinion

CATES, Judge.

Widmar was held disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits May 12 through June 30, 1956, during the locomotive engineers’ strike April 28 — July 1, 1956. See Phelps v. United States Steel Corp., ante, p. 541, 105 So.2d 714.

Widmar worked at the Blooming Mill in the Ensley Works, Tennessee Coal and Iron Division of the United States Steel Corporation in Jefferson County, Alabama.

The trial judge, in pronouncing his views on judgment, said (in part) :

“* * * You have got .the Cold Rolling Operation at the Ensley Blooming Mill, and I think there to me it is evident that there was a bona fide effort on- the part of management and the union to try to work out some way that that operation could be carried on. That is the way it appears to me from the evidence. I don’t think [548]*548there is any dispute about that, that they did try to work it out, but I think the final result of it is, the only conclusion I could come to from the evidence is that the steelworkers just didn’t find it possible for them to do that work, and the only conclusion I-can come to is that the work was available, and they chose not to do the work, and I don’t think there is enough evidence here of any violence there on that picket line: Th.ere is not sufficient evidence for me, sitting as a Judge, to say that they were authorized not to do the work. I would have to say as to that operation they were not qualified, or became disqualified by reason of not undertaking that operation.”

The testimony had much the same tendency (though of different factual components) as that in Phelps.

On authority of Phelps v. United States Steel Corp., supra, the judgment below is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Widmar v. United States Steel Corp.
105 So. 2d 717 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1958)
Speagle v. United States Steel Corporation
105 So. 2d 721 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 So. 2d 716, 39 Ala. App. 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/widmar-v-united-states-steel-corporation-alactapp-1958.