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.

POLINCHAK ET AL. v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW. (POLINCHAK UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.) (03/16/54)

March 16, 1954

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



COUNSEL

Ernest G. Nassar, Charles F. McKenna, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

William L. Hammond, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

John G. Wayman, Franklin L. Morgal, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Francis St. C. O'Leary, Pittsburgh, of counsel, for Pittsburgh Steel Co., intervening appellee.

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

Author: Hirt

[ 175 Pa. Super. Page 182]

HIRT, Judge.

This is a group appeal by a number of employes of the Pittsburgh Steel Company at its Monessen plant from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying compensation.

All of the claimants are members of the United Steelworkers of America, C.I.O. On April 29, 1952 they left their work when an industry-wide strike was called by the president of the union. As a result, all operations at the Monessen plant ceased on that date. The strike ended on May 2, 1952 and the actual work stoppage, the following day. The Monessen plant is

[ 175 Pa. Super. Page 183]

    an integrated steel mill and in the sequence of operations from the blast furnace to the finished product each department is dependent upon others. Because of a failure of the steam plant and the interdependence of the various departments, it was not possible to resume full operations immediately upon termination of the work stoppage. The plant did proceed according to an orderly plan for the gradual resumption of operations in all departments and each claimant was recalled when work was available in his particular unit. These claimants presented themselves for work on May 3 but work was not available until May 11 for some of them, and May 12 for the others, when they were recalled to their jobs. Compensation was claimed for weeks ending on one or the other of those dates.

In anticipation of the impending labor dispute the Union had agreed that, in the event of a strike, standby maintenance employes would be afforded access to the plant to prevent damage to it and to expedite resumption of production at the end of the work stoppage. The local union had pledged cooperation in effecting an orderly shutdown of the plant and had agreed specifically to keep vital steam plants in operation. The agreement was repudiated on April 30, 1952 and of necessity the steam plant was completely closed down on that day. From a too-rapid cooling of the steam plant, when the maintenance men were withdrawn by the Union, ruptures in the steam pipes and separations in the joints of conducting units resulted. Steam was essential to resumption of operations and the time necessarily consumed in repairing the damage to the steam plant was the principal factor contributing to the delay in resuming production. Repair of the damage was not completed until May 6. Steam was available to the blast furnace on that date and the first hot metal was delivered to the open hearth furnaces on May 8. It

[ 175 Pa. Super. Page 184]

    was not until May 12 however that steel could be processed and delivered to the 'finishing side of the ...


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.