Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development

We've got NEWS

Thursday, June 25, 1998 Governor Tommy G. Thompson Secretary Linda Stewart

News Media Contact Michael H. McCoy 608/267-4400 e-mail: mccoymi@dwd.state.wi.us fax: 608/266-1784

For more information contact:
Al Jaloviar, UI Benefit Operations Bureau Director, 608/266-8211
Eric T. Baker, Deputy UI Administrator, 608/266-2284

UI benefits to be paid to
GM workers in labor dispute

Madison, Wis. -- The State Department of Workforce Development will pay claims of workers at General Motors operations in Wisconsin who have lost work because of a current labor dispute.

Benefits are payable after an analysis of three key criteria established in a prior decision by the State Supreme Court, the agency announced.

The criteria involve consideration of "functional integration, physical promixity, and unity of employment and management," said Maureen Hlavacek, the state’s Unemployment Insurance Division administrator.

Most workers likely will receive the state’s current top weekly benefit rate of $290, officials said. About 3,800 claims have been filed to date.

(Editors: a summary of the Department’s findings are attached.)

---

GENERAL MOTORS LABOR DISPUTE
JUNE 1998

SPECIFIC BACKGROUND

• Employees of the Flint Metal Center of General Motors Corporation (GM) went on strike at the plant in Flint, Michigan on June 5^th, 1998.
• Employees at the Delphi Flint East plant of General Motors Corporation (GM) in Flint, Michigan went on strike on June 11, 1998
• The dispute is still in progress
• There are three GM locations in Wisconsin impacted by the strike (3836 claims through 6/24/98).

1. Delphi Electronics (formerly Delco) – Milwaukee (415 claims through 6/24/98)
2. Delphi Energy & Engine Management Systems – Milwaukee (257 claims through 6/24/98)
3. GM Assembly – Janesville (3,164 claims through 6/24/98)

IMPACT ON WISCONSIN LOCATIONS

A. Delphi Electronics (formerly Delco)

1. There is some general interdependence, but not a direct relationship. None of the plants supplied the other. Not the same establishment.
2. They are miles apart. Not the same establishment.

Treating all the factors as equal and having two of the three result in a decision that the claimants did not work in the same establishment where the labor dispute occurred, UI BENEFITS ARE PAYABLE.

B. Delphi Energy & Engine Management Systems

1. There is some general interdependence, but not a direct relationship. None of the plants supplied the other. Not the same establishment.
2. They are miles apart. Not the same establishment.
3. There is unity of management and employment. The same establishment.

Treating all the factors as equal and having two of the three result in a decision that the claimants did not work in the same establishment where the labor dispute occurred, UI BENEFITS ARE PAYABLE.

C. GM Assembly Janesville

1. There is interdependence between the plants in Flint and the Janesville assembly plant. The plants in Flint supply parts for both the light and medium duty truck lines. Parts are produced and shipped on a "just in time" basis. While there is interdependence, it is not the degree of production synchronization that the Wisconsin Supreme Court (in a prior ruling) established as necessary to meet this test. Not the same establishment.
2. They are miles apart. Not the same establishment.
3. There is unity of management and employment. The same establishment.

Treating all factors as equal and having two of the three result in a decision that the claimants did not work in the same establishment where the labor dispute occurred, UI BENEFITS ARE PAYABLE.

 

Additional Background:

The labor dispute provision only applies if there is a substantial connection between the labor dispute and either the employer or the employer-claimants.

The UI Statutes in Wisconsin provide that benefits are denied to individuals who are out of work due to a labor dispute in the establishment in which they are employed.

• Supreme Court has defined a test to be used when deciding if labor dispute is in the same establishment as the one in which the claimant worked.
• The test requires that the following questions be answered:

1. Is there Functional Integration?

   Look both at actual locations and work being done

   Emphasis on degree of interdependence between plants and synchronization of work

2. Is there Physical Proximity?

Look both at actual distance and at whether having separate locations is integral or incidental to the work being done

3. Is there Unity of Employment and Management?

At what level is management of the plants shared?

To what extent do the plants function like a single employer (for example – common payroll, honor seniority from other plant, allow open transfers between plants, etc.)

To what extent are employees from plants organized as if a single employer (for example – same union, only national agreement or also local agreements with individual plants, etc.)

• Balancing test, look at degree of each factor, 2 out of 3 may be sufficient

Source: Unemployment Insurance Division, Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, June 25, 1998

Wisconsin.gov | Site Map | Search | Accessibility | Legal | Feedback | DWD Home