Harold E. Kohn, James A. Sutton, Philadelphia, for appellant.
William L. Hammond, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Wagner, Harrisburg, Charles J. Margiotti, Atty. Gen., M. H. Goldstein, Philadelphia, for intervening appellee.
Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Arnold and Gunther, JJ.
[ 168 Pa. Super. Page 448]
In these unemployment compensation cases four claimants each received an award from the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review and the employer, Ford Motor Company, took separate appeals.
Ford Motor Company is a Delaware corporation engaged in the manufacture of motor vehicles and its principal plant is at Dearborn, Michigan, where motor vehicle parts are manufactured and are sent to various assembly plants located throughout the United States.
A strike began at the Dearborn plant on May 8, 1949. It was voted by the United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO) of that plant, and approved by the International Union. The dispute at Dearborn concerned the pacing of conveyor belts carrying manufactured parts. One of the assembly plants of Ford Motor Company is located at Chester, Pennsylvania, and it relied on the Dearborn plant for about 50% of the parts used. Due to the strike of the employes at Dearborn and the consequent failure of a supply of parts from that plant, the Chester plant partially shut down from May 10, 1949, to June 8, 1949. During this period a number of the employes of the Chester plant continued to work on maintenance or in the export division, but the present appellees were out of work.
Most of the questions raised on these appeals are factual, and, being based on competent, credible evidence, the findings of the board are determinative. On
[ 168 Pa. Super. Page 449]
such evidence the board found that there was no labor dispute at the Chester plant; that the dispute at Dearborn did not involve wages, hours or working conditions at Chester; that the employes of the Chester plant did not call, approve, authorize or ratify the Michigan strike; and that there was no dispute between the members of the Chester local union and the Company.*fn1
On the same quality of evidence the board found that UAW-CIO is divided into self-governing unions constituting separate units; that a strike may be declared only after a vote of the local union approved by the international union; and that the latter cannot call a strike without the prior vote of the local.
Section 402(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law of 1936, P.L. 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(d), denies unemployment compensation if the unemployment was 'due to a stoppage of work, which exists because of a labor dispute * * * at the factory, establishment or other premises at which he * * * [the employe] was last employed'. (Italics supplied.) The appellant contends that all its various plants scattered throughout the United States from one seaboard to the other are so strongly integrated that they are on establishment, and that a labor dispute existing in any one of some 23 of its units occurs at the establishment ...