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. HUGHES UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. (09/11/58)

September 11, 1958

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW. HUGHES UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.



Appeal, No. 204, April T., 1957, by employer, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Nos. B-9-K-1294 to 1320, inclusive, No. B-45221, in re claims of Evan J. Hughes et al. Decision reversed.

COUNSEL

John G. Wayman, with him Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, for appellant.

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

M. H. Goldstein, with him Goldstein & Barkan, for claimants-intervenors.

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

Author: Rhodes

[ 187 Pa. Super. Page 254]

OPINION BY RHODES, P.J.

This is an appeal by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review granting compensation to claimant, Evan J. Hughes. By stipulation the determination

[ 187 Pa. Super. Page 255]

    of this appeal will govern the claims of all employes represented by the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO (IUE), Local 111, who were involved in a work stoppage on January 19, 1954, at the Westinghouse plant, 3001 Market Street, Philadelphia. The question is whether the board properly allowed compensation on the basis that the work stoppage was a lockout within the meaning of section 402 (d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS ยง 802 (d).*fn1

Section 402 (d), as amended, provides in part: "An employe 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: ..."

The basic facts as found by the board are not questioned. Westinghouse contends, however, that the board erred in drawing inferences from those facts, in ignoring certain undisputed facts, and in reaching its ultimate conclusion. In brief, the facts as found by the board are as follows. The employes involved are production and maintenance workers at the Westinghouse plant at 3001 Market Street, Philadelphia. They became unemployed on January 19, 1954, when they ceased work in protest against the promotion of three employes. The employes are members of Local 111 of the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO (IUE), and until November 4, 1949, had been affiliated with the United Electrical,

[ 187 Pa. Super. Page 256]

Radio and Machine Workers (UE) which was expelled from the CIO. Prior to the expulsion of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers from the CIO there had been in effect between the union and Westinghouse a national labor relations agreement and a local supplement thereto entered into on August 7, 1947. After the expulsion the successor union, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, entered into a new national agreement with Westinghouse effective October 1, 1950. This national agreement provided for continued negotiations between Westinghouse and the local for the purpose of concluding local supplements to the national agreement covering terms and conditions of employment relating to the local plant. In accordance with the national agreement Local 111 and Westinghouse conducted negotiations from 1951 until February, 1953, in an effort to reach an agreement on the local supplement. Westinghouse submitted a proposed local supplement which contained certain provisions different from those in the previous 1947 local supplement, but this proposal was rejected by the union.*fn2 On March 13, 1953, Westinghouse notified all employes represented by Local 111 that, effective March 16, 1953, it would apply a set of policies as outlined in the proposed supplemental agreement. On June 3, 1953, Westinghouse applied the seniority provisions 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.