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.

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW (NO. 3). (ALLMAN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.) (09/11/58)

September 11, 1958

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW (NO. 3). (ALLMAN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.)



Appeals, No. 36, April T., 1958, and No. 93, Oct. T., 1958, by employer and by claimants, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Appeal No. B-5-C-131A, Decision No. B-45707, in re claims of Madison Allman et al. Decision affirmed in part and reversed in part; reargument refused October 9, 1958.

COUNSEL

John G. Wayman, with him Elder W. Marshall, Leonard L. Scheinholtz, James H. Hardie, and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, for appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.

David Cohen, for appellees-intervenors.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.

Author: Rhodes

[ 187 Pa. Super. Page 418]

OPINION BY RHODES, P.J.

This unemployment compensation case involves approximately nine hundred fifty employes of the Westinghouse Electric Corporation at its plants in Derry and Nuttall, Pennsylvania, who became unemployed on October 25, 1955, due to a work stoppage involving

[ 187 Pa. Super. Page 419]

    a labor dispute.*fn1 The Board of Review concluded that the claimants were not entitled to unemployment compensation from the commencement of the work stoppage to December 19, 1955, but that thereafter, through February 20, 1956, the employes were entitled to benefits on the basis that the initial strike had been converted into a lockout on December 20, 1955.*fn2 Claimants have appealed from that portion of the board's decision denying benefits; the company has appealed from that portion of the decision granting benefits.

Basically the issue here is the same as in Westinghouse Electric Corporation v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (No. 2), McCracken Unemployment Compensation Case, 187 Pa. Superior Ct. 403, 144 A.2d 679. Our decision in those appeals is controlling on the appeals presently before us. However, there are certain factual differences which require additional comment.

The collective bargaining agreement between the company and the union provided that it could be terminated on October 15, 1955, by sixty days' advance written notice given by one party to the other. The agreement also provided that neither of the parties would request changes therein prior to August 15, 1955. On August 15, 1955, the union requested negotiations ...


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.