We granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals in Department of Industrial Relations v. Walker, 109 So.2d 131. The case involves the claims of Walker and Danzy, employees of Stockham, for unemployment compensation.
The Court of Appeals, after summarizing the tendencies of the evidence, held as follows:
The question presented is whether the Court of Appeals' holding, based on its findings from the evidence, is contrary to the provisions of § 214, Subdiv. A, Tit. 26, Code 1940, as amended by Act No. 565, appvd. August 31, 1951, Acts 1951, p. 990. (Section 214 was also amended by Act No. 360, appvd. Sept. 7, 1955, Acts 1955, p. 875, but no change was made affecting Subdiv. A.) Section 214, Subdiv. A, as amended, supra, provides as follows:
Petitioners take the position that their unemployment "was ordered by their employer directly because of the employer's `apprehension' of possible untoward results that might have occurred if a strike or failure to extend the then existing contract took place subsequent to petitioners' lay-off."
It seems to us, from the evidence as found by the Court of Appeals, that
It should be noted that the case of Usher v. Department of Industrial Relations, 261 Ala. 509, 75 So.2d 165, has no application here. In that case the claimant was in no way involved in the labor dispute causing his unemployment. In the instant case the claimants were members of the union engaged in a labor dispute with their employer.
Petitioners insist that "the opinion of the Court of Appeals in this case and in the case of Department of Industrial Relations v. Savage, 38 Ala.App. 277, 82 So.2d 435 [supra], are squarely in conflict with the case of Gulf Atlantic Warehouse Company v. Bennett, 36 Ala.App. 33, 51 So.2d 544, * * *." In Savage [82 So.2d 438] the Court of Appeals noted that there was "no evidence of an intervening independent agency," as in Bennett. In the Bennett case it was held that, where a public warehouse company, in apprehension that its employees might walk out or create a work stoppage at expiration of their collective bargaining contract, notified its customers to that effect, and customers ceased shipments to the warehouse, the resulting unemployment was directly due to the misapprehension of the customers, as an intervening agency independent of the labor dispute, and, therefore, the unemployment was not directly due to a labor dispute within the disqualification provisions of § 214, Subdiv. A, supra. Clearly, that case is distinguishable from the one now before us and also the Savage case.
Petitioners complain that "the Court of Appeals has reviewed the evidence, which was in conflict as to the circumstances and cause of petitioners' unemployment, and has substituted its appraisal of the facts for that of the learned Circuit Judge." That is an argument which could have been appropriately addressed to the Court of Appeals during its consideration of the case. It is not appropriate here.
The petitioners also, in their petition for certiorari and in their briefs, make reference to and discuss evidence which is not included in the Court of Appeals' opinion. On certiorari to that Court we do not go to the record and consider all the evidence anew and determine, as a reviewable proposition, whether the factual findings and conclusions are sufficiently supported by the evidence or are against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Nor will we examine the record and determine whether the Court of Appeals failed to give proper consideration to the rule of review that a trial court's findings from evidence taken orally before it is "to be given the effect of a jury
All the Justices concur.