Darling v. Industrial Commission
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFairchild, J.
Plaintiffs claimed unemployment compensation benefits for weeks 29 and 30 (1954) after they were laid off from employment at Auto-Lite. By virtue of past service and the collective-bargaining agreement in effect at Auto-Lite, plaintiffs were entitled to receive a payment of a percentage of the amount earned by them in 1953. This is referred to in the agreement as “vacation pay.” It is the position of Auto-Lite and the commission that, notwithstanding the change in plaintiffs’ employment status by *357reason of the layoff, the vacation pay could be allocated to two weeks while plaintiffs were away…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Renown Stove Co. v. Unemployment Compensation CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1950
- Pattenge v. Wagner Iron WorksWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
- Hamlin v. the Coolerator Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
- Reid v. BOARD OF REVIEW, ETC.Ohio Supreme Court · 1951
- Skibb v. J. I. Case Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1949
3Cited by6 opinions
- Cutler-Hammer, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
- Valeo v. J. I. Case Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
- McGraw-Edison Co. v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
- Arrow Co. v. STATE, DEPT. OF INDUS. RELATIONSCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1979
- Brink v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.