Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

FRANKE ET AL. v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW. (FRANKE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.) (01/12/50)

January 12, 1950

FRANKE ET AL.
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW. (FRANKE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.)



COUNSEL

Jason Richardson, Frank R. Bolte, Pittsburgh, for appellants.

Richard H. Wagner, Associate Counsel, Harrisburg, William L. Hammond, Special Deputy Attorney General, T. McKeen Chidsey, Attorney General, for appellee.

William Anderson, Pittsburgh, for intervenor appellees.

Before Rhodes, P. J., and Reno, Dithrich, Ross and Fine, JJ.

Author: Rhodes

[ 166 Pa. Super. Page 253]

RHODES, President Judge.

This is an appeal by claimant, Carl W. Franke, from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, disallowing claim for unemployment compensation benefits. The decision of the board relates to approximately 222 similarly situated claimants. Appellant and the other claimants were employed by the Pittsburgh Motor Coach Company as bus drivers in September, 1946. They were members of Division 1084, Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employes of America. The buses of Pittsburgh Motor Coach Company were maintained and repaired, under contract, by employes of the Equitable Auto Company at three different garages (Lexington Avenue, Denny Street, and North Side) of Pittsburgh Motor Coach Company in the Pittsburgh area. The employes of Equitable Auto Company were members of an independent union; this was the same union of which the employes of the Duquesne Light Company were members.

On or about September 24, 1946, the employes of the Equitable Auto Company and the Dequesne Light Company went on a strike; this continued through October 14, 1946, the date claimants returned to work. Employes of Equitable Auto Company appeared as pickets at the three garages of Pittsburgh Motor Coach Company on September 24, 25, 26, 1946. It is conceded that claimants became unemployed between September 24 and October 14, 1946, as a result of an industrial dispute between the Pittsburgh Motor Coach Company and the maintenance

[ 166 Pa. Super. Page 254]

    employes of Equitable Auto Company. No dispute of any kind existed between the members of Division 1084 and Pittsburgh Motor Coach Company.

Claimants registered for work and filed applications for benefits for weeks ending October 3 and 10, 1946. The bureau, on January 12, 1949, decided that the claims for these weeks were valid, and that claimants were not subject to the disqualification period provided in section 402(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, as amended by the Act of April 23, 1942, Ex.Sess., P.L. 60, § 4, and the Act of May 29, 1945, P.L. 1145, § 9.*fn1 See 43 P.S. § 802 for further amendments. The bureau applied its decision in favor of appellant to the other employes of Pittsburgh Motor Coach Company who had filed for unemployment compensation benefits. On January 18, 1949, Pittsburgh Motor Coach Company, acting through its trustees, appealed from the decision of the bureau. In order to facilitate disposition of the appeal, the board assumed original jurisdiction by its order of February 23, 1949. After hearing, the board on July 13, 1949, reversed the bureau and disallowed the claims on the ground that claimants' unemployment was due to a voluntary suspension of work resulting from an industrial dispute within the meaning of section 402(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, as amended by the Acts of 1942 and 1945. The board excepted from

[ 166 Pa. Super. Page 255]

    its order the claim of Charles Von Kaenel, a member of the same group of claimants and of Division 1084, whose rights had been adjudicated previously. In re Von Kaenel Unemployment ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.