Legal Opinion

Darling v. Industrial Commission

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 3, 1958PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Renown Stove Co. v. Unemployment Compensation CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1950
  2. Pattenge v. Wagner Iron WorksWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
  3. Hamlin v. the Coolerator Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
  4. Reid v. BOARD OF REVIEW, ETC.Ohio Supreme Court · 1951
  5. Skibb v. J. I. Case Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1949

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Cutler-Hammer, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Valeo v. J. I. Case Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
  3. McGraw-Edison Co. v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human RelationsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Arrow Co. v. STATE, DEPT. OF INDUS. RELATIONSCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1979
  5. Brink v. Industrial CommissionWisconsin Supreme Court · 1965

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API