Alexander v. Miss. Dep't of Employment Sec.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-CC-00013-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 11-06-2008
Opinion Author: Carlson, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Unemployment benefits - Unavailable for work - Unpaid vacation - Section 71-5-511(k)
Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Dickinson and Randolph, JJ.
Non Participating Judge(s): Lamar, J.
Dissenting Author : Diaz, P.J., with separate written opinion.
Dissent Joined By : Easley, J.; Graves, J. Joins In Part.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment; Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 12-06-2007
Appealed from: Alcorn County Circuit Court
Judge: Paul S. Funderburk
Disposition: The trial court affirmed the Mississippi Department of Employment Security's denial of employment benefits to Ronnie Alexander.
Case Number: 2007-0393FA

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Ronnie Alexander, et al




Charles R. Wilbanks, Sr.



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: Mississippi Department of Employment Security and Mississippi Polymers, Inc. LEANNE FRANKLIN BRADY; WENDELL H. TRAPP, JR.  
    Appellee #2:  

    Synopsis provided by:

    If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals
    hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office.

    Topic: Unemployment benefits - Unavailable for work - Unpaid vacation - Section 71-5-511(k)

    Summary of the Facts: Ronnie Alexander, along with ninety-seven other Mississippi Polymers, Inc. employees, filed unemployment benefit claims with the Mississippi Department of Employment Security. Donna Weston, MPI Human Resources Manager, wrote a letter to Dale Groves at the MDES claims center in Corinth. This letter confirmed a telephone conversation between Weston and Groves and explained that the “maintenance shutdown” from December 17, 2006, until approximately January 2, 2007, “is not a lack of work situation” and that “[w]e have had these type shutdowns for thirty plus years” and that employees were not eligible for unemployment benefits. On January 9, 2007, MDES sent the claimants a Notice of Nonmonetary Decision. However, on February 23, 2007, MDES sent MPI a Notice to Employer of Claims Determination which stated that MDES had determined that MPI “was not closed due to a designated holiday or vacation period during the weeks ending December 23, 2006 and December 30, 2006,” and that, therefore, “the decisions denying benefits to individuals who filed claims for unemployment benefits during this time have been reversed.” MPI appealed, and the ALJ reversed the claims examiner’s decision. The MDES Board of Review affirmed the ALJ’s decision. The circuit court affirmed the decision of the Board of Review. The claimants appeal.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: The claimants argue that the ALJ, the Board of Review, and the circuit court abused their discretion in finding that the plant was not shut down for lack of work during the week of Thanksgiving and the two-week period which encompassed the Christmas and New Year’s holidays. However, the only issue before the ALJ, and therefore the Board of Review and the circuit court, was whether the claimants were unavailable for work during the two-week Christmas shutdown in 2006. In the MDES hearing notice, all concerned parties were put on notice that the sole issue to be considered was whether the claimants were “prima facie unavailable for work due to a holiday period or vacation for week(s) ending 12/23/06 [and] 12/30/06.” It is clear that MPI had a scheduled shutdown each year, as referenced in the union agreement. It is also clear that, while this shutdown was the longest, the shutdown was similar in time and amount of time to the shutdowns in past years. Therefore, there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the ALJ and the Board of Review in finding that the two-week Christmas shutdown in 2006 was not a lack-of-work shutdown. The claimants argue that the Thanksgiving shutdown for lack of work constituted the first week of unemployment, and that they are entitled to benefits for the two-week shutdown at Christmas. However, no employees were removed from the employment rolls. All employees were expected back at work on January 3, 2007, and the administrative record reveals that all of the employees have continued their employment with MPI. Because the union agreed to the shutdown and the employees had not been terminated, the claimants were not entitled to benefits. The employees were paid for the company holidays specified, but were on unpaid vacation, in accordance with section 71-5-511(k) for the remaining days of the shutdown.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court