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.

HOGAN v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW. (HOGAN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.) (09/26/51)

September 26, 1951

HOGAN
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW. (HOGAN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.)



COUNSEL

M. H. Goldstein, Philadelphia, for appellant.

William L. Hammond, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Charles J. Margiotti, Atty. Gen., R. Carlyle Fee, Associate Counsel, Harrisburg, John E. Laughlin, Jr., Clyde Slease, Thorp, Reed & Armstrong, Pittsburgh, for Dravo Corp., intervening appellee.

Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross, Arnold and Gunther, JJ.

Author: Reno

[ 169 Pa. Super. Page 556]

RENO, Judge.

So far as is here pertinent, § 402(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, as amended by the Act of May 23, 1949, P.L. 1738, § 11, 43 P.S. § 802, provides: 'An employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week * * *

'(d) In which his unemployment is due to a stoppage of work, which exists because of a labor dispute (other than a lock-out) at the factory, establishment or other premises at which he is or was last employed * * *.' (Emphasis added.)

There was a labor dispute between the Dravo Corporation and the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, Local No. 61, a C. I. O. affiliate. On July 18, 1949, a stoppage of work occurred at the Neville Island Shipyard, Engineering Works Division. The board held that the stoppage resulted from a strike, not a lock-out, and denied benefits. Claimant Hogan, for himself and as the representative

[ 169 Pa. Super. Page 557]

    of his fellow-employes, appealed. Dravo appeared as an intervening appellee.

The findings of fact, briefly stated, present this picture.*fn1 Dravo and the Union had a collective bargaining agreement which was to expire on July 16, 1949, at 12:24 a. m. By its letter of May 11, 1949, the Union notified Dravo that it desired a modification of its terms, and between May 31 and July 15 approximately 10 negotiation meetings were held. A federal labor conciliator appeared on July 12, and requested Dravo to extend the existing contract for 5 days to permit him to familiarize himself with the issues involved. Dravo refused on the ground that negotiations were still in progress. A similar request was made on July 13th and 14th by representatives of the Union, and again refused on the same ground. None of these requests were made at scheduled negotiation meetings. On July 13th at a regular negotiation meeting Dravo made a verbal proposal to the Union, which was subsequently reduced to writing, submitted to a meeting of the Union, and rejected by it. The Union informed Dravo that it 'had to make more concessions. The company replied that no more would be made.'

Dravo had arranged a picnic for its 5,000 employes on July 16th. The Union agreed to 'supply the necessary men to handle arrangements for the picnic and would not interfere therewith.' But on the day before the picnic, July 15th, a representative of the Union announced to employes as they left their work, over a loud speaker attached to an automobile, that there would be no work after 12:24 a. m. July 16th. ...


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.