NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Second. 

Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors in order that corrections may be made 

before final publication in the permanent volume. 

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 

APRIL TERM, A.D. 1999 

JULY 14, 1999 

WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, ) 

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, ) 

) 

Appellant ) 

(Respondent), ) 

) 

v. ) No. 98­257 

) 

CRAIG PORTER, ) 

) 

Appellee ) 

(Petitioner). ) 

Appeal from the District Court of Uinta County 

Honorable John D. Troughton, Judge 

Representing Appellant: 

Gay Woodhouse, Attorney General; and Joe Scott, Senior Assistant Attorney General. 

Argument by Mr. Scott. 

Representing Appellee: 

Michael D. Newman of Honacker, Hampton & Newman, Rock Springs, WY. 

Argument by Mr. Newman 

Before LEHMAN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN, and HILL, JJ. 



­1­ 

HILL, Justice. 

The Wyoming Department of Employment, Unemployment Insurance Commission 

(Commission), appeals from the decision of the district court reversing the determination of the 

Commission that Appellee Craig Porter (Porter) was liable for the repayment of unemployment 

insurance benefits based on this Court=s decision in General Chemical Corporation v. 

Unemployment Insurance Commission, 906 P.2d 380 (Wyo. 1995). 

We affirm the decision of the district court. 

ISSUES 

The Commission sets forth a single issue for review: 

Whether Unemployment Insurance Commission Decision No. C­ 

6501­98, which held Craig Porter was liable to repay 

unemployment benefits is supported by substantial evidence and 

is in conformity with law? 

Porter=s statement of the issue substantially agrees with that set forth by the Commission: 

Was the Unemployment Insurance Commission=s decision 

affirming the Appeals Examiner=s holding that the Claimant had 

been overpaid unemployment insurance benefits in accordance 

with law? 

FACTS 

In 1993, Porter was part of a group of employees of General Chemical Corporation who 

went on strike. Porter was terminated from his employment for alleged picket line misconduct. 

Porter and other striking employees filed claims for unemployment benefits, and General 

Chemical challenged the claims for benefits filed by the striking workers. An initial 

determination was made by a deputy of the Department of Employment, Employment 

Resources Division (Division), that Porter was eligible for unemployment benefits. In an 

apparent effort to simplify matters, General Chemical entered into an agreement with the 

striking workers whereby they agreed to consolidate their claims into a Atest case@ based upon 

the conclusion that Acommon questions of law and fact [will] determine@ the claimant=s rights 

to benefits (hereinafter the Agreement). Despite having been terminated from his employment, 

Porter signed the Agreement, along with other strikers. 



­2­ 

General Chemical appealed the test case, and an Appeals Examiner overturned the 

deputy=s decision and found that the claimants were not entitled to benefits because they were 

members of a labor organization engaged in a work stoppage, and such activity disqualifies an 

individual from benefits under Wyo. Stat. Ann. ' 27­3­313(a)(i) (LEXIS 1999). The Appeals 

Examiner also specifically found that Porter had not engaged in any misconduct on the picket 

line. The decision of the Appeals Examiner was appealed to the Commission. Reversing the 

decision, the Commission concluded that Awork stoppage@ referred to the employer=s business 

operations and not the individual worker=s decision to withhold his labor. The Commission did 

affirm the Appeals Examiner=s determination that Porter had not engaged in misconduct. 1 

General Chemical appealed that portion of the Commission=s decision relating to the 

eligibility of the claimants under the Awork stoppage@ provision of Wyo. Stat. Ann. ' 27­3­ 

313(a)(i) to the district court, which certified the matter to this Court. In General Chemical 

Corporation v. Unemployment Insurance Commission, 906 P.2d 380 (Wyo. 1995), we reversed 

the Commission on the basis that the plain language of the statute indicated that Awork 

stoppage@ referred to an individual=s voluntary decision to withhold his labor, and, 

consequently, the striking workers were disqualified under Wyo. Stat. Ann. ' 27­3­313(a)(i) 

from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. General Chemical Corporation, 906 P.2d 

at 381­82. 

In response to the General Chemical decision, the Division sent Porter a notice on 

March 12, 1996, that he had been paid unemployment benefits for which he was not qualified. 

The Division requested repayment of $2,420.00 for the weeks ending September 18 through 

November 27, 1993. The Division did not request repayment for any benefits Porter received 

after November 27­­which was when the strike ended­­because his employment