Donald W. Ebbert, W. Gordon Rauck and Thorp, Reed & Armstrong, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
William L. Hammond, Special Deputy Atty. Gen., and Robert E. Woodside, Atty.Gen., for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross, Arnold and Gunther, JJ. Re-argued Nov. 13, 1952, before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno Dithrich, Ross and Gunther, JJ.
[ 172 Pa. Super. Page 325]
The present four appeals by the defendant employer, from the decisions of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review to the effect that the claimants are not barred from unemployment compensation, raise a single question of law. For that reason the appeals will be consolidated for disposition in this opinion.
Claimants were all discharged by their employer, the defendant, on February 1, 1951. On the next day three of them received vacation pay for the following two weeks and the other for one week. These payments related to benefit claim periods and under § 4(u) of the amendment of the Unemployment Compensation Law, in the Act of September 29, 1951, P.L. 1580, 43 P.S. § 753(u), the claimants cannot be regarded as unemployed for the weeks for which such payments were
[ 172 Pa. Super. Page 326]
made. Cf. Fazio Unemployment Case, 164 Pa. Super. 9, 63 A.2d 489. So much is conceded. But the Board found that they were eligible for unemployment compensation for succeeding claim weeks. H.J. Heinz Company is an aggrieved party with the right of appeal in these cases under § 510 of the Act, as amended, 43 P.S. § 830.
On January 30, 1951, one Bamrick, an employe in the shipping department, was discharged after warning for smoking on a part of defendant's plant, contrary to posted company rules which had been agreed to by Local 325, Canning and Pickle Workers of America. Thereupon most of the employes in that area of the plant abandoned their jobs, walked out of the plant and assembled in the street in protest of Barmrick's discharge. All of defendant's employes were members of that union. On the day of Bamrick's discharge the union lodged a routine grievance with the company in accordance with the terms of its contract with the company. On the following morning the president and the business agent of the union instructed the assembled employes to return to work, stating that the propriety of Bamrick's discharge was in the process of determination by the grievance committee. Later in the same day when the employes appeared in the union hall they were again urged by their union officers to return to work; they however refused. Early in the afternoon of January 31, pickets appeared at the main gate of defendant's plant carrying placards displaying the legend 'No Work. H. J. Heinz unfair labor practice, AF of L. 325'. During that afternoon some employes were dissuaded from returning to work in the plant by the picketing. When fifteen pickets appeared the next day, two large signs, authorized by the union, were displayed on the premises stating 'This is an unauthorized strike. Employees are urged
[ 172 Pa. Super. Page 327]
to report for work as usual -- Local 325'. In response to the urgings by their union about 80% of the total of 2300 employes then returned to work. Appellants Kern and Solman came to the gate of the plant in the afternoon of February 1, and were then induced by two of their fellow workmen to carry picket signs and actively join the picket line. Because of that conduct they were discharged by company officials on that day. Appellant Jackson had knowledge of the unauthorized strike when he appeared at the gate on February 1. With that knowledge he nevertheless was persuaded to carry a similar sign and he too was discharged for picketing. Appellant Fernandes was discharged at the same time for the same reason. There was nothing to prevent all of the appellants from returning to work on February 1; they remained away from choice.
Local 325 was the bargaining agent of all of defendant's employes and on their behalf had entered into a contract with H. J. Heinz Company, providing: 'Section 2. The Union agrees to accept and abide by all of the terms and conditions of this contract and during its term will not permit its members to engage in any walkout, sitdown, slowdown, or other interference with or interruption of work, and that it will not call, countenance or otherwise encourage any walkout or strike'. The Company in the same section agreed: 'to accept and abide by all the terms and conditions of this Contract and during its term [that it would not] lock out the employees'. In Section 5 it was provided: 'Union members, ...