Challenging the Payment of Unemployment Compensation to Striking Workers
Women & Infants’ Hospital (W&I) petitioned the Rhode Island Supreme Court to review a decision of the Department of Labor and Training awarding unemployment benefits to striking workers. NELF urged the Court to take the case. The principal issue was the interpretation of a Rhode Island law which details when employees are entitled to receive unemployment compensation during a labor dispute. If employees begin a labor stoppage by striking, they are not entitled to unemployment compensation; if management begins a labor stoppage by a lockout, the employees receive unemployment benefits. The lockout provision includes an exception: unemployment compensation is not paid if management demonstrates that it offered the union an extension of the existing contract for up to three days and the union refused to agree to an extension. The Department held that the exception did not apply because the lockout was not solely to secure the extension, but also to enhance W&I’s bargaining position generally. NELF was prepared to argue that this interpretation added a condition to the plain language of the statute and vitiated the Legislature’s carefully crafted balance of employer/employee rights. The Court refused to review the decision.
Women & Infants’ Hospital (W&I) petitioned the Rhode Island Supreme Court to review a decision of the Department of Labor and Training awarding unemployment benefits to striking workers. NELF urged the Court to take the case. The principal issue was the interpretation of a Rhode Island law which details when employees are entitled to receive unemployment compensation during a labor dispute. If employees begin a labor stoppage by striking, they are not entitled to unemployment compensation; if management begins a labor stoppage by a lockout, the employees receive unemployment benefits. The lockout provision includes an exception: unemployment compensation is not paid if management demonstrates that it offered the union an extension of the existing contract for up to three days and the union refused to agree to an extension. The Department held that the exception did not apply because the lockout was not solely to secure the extension, but also to enhance W&I’s bargaining position generally. NELF was prepared to argue that this interpretation added a condition to the plain language of the statute and vitiated the Legislature’s carefully crafted balance of employer/employee rights. The Court refused to review the decision.
RSS Feed