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.

OLUSCHAK UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. (04/13/60)

April 13, 1960

OLUSCHAK UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.


Appeal, No. 472, Oct. T., 1959, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-53000, in re claim of Joseph Oluschak. Decision affirmed.

COUNSEL

David Cohen, for claimant, appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.

John G. Wayman, with him H. T. Herrick, and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, for employer, intervening appellee.

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

Author: Watkins

[ 192 Pa. Super. Page 256]

OPINION BY WATKINS, J.

This is an unemployment compensation case in which the Bureau of Employment Security, the Referee and the Board of Review all concluded that the claimant-appellant, Joseph Oluschak's unemployment was the result of a labor dispute and that he was ineligible

[ 192 Pa. Super. Page 257]

    for benefits under the provisions of Section 402(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. 2897, as amended, 43 PS § 751 et seq.

The claimant was employed by the Westinghouse Electric Company, Lester, Pennsylvania from sometime in 1941 until October 14, 1955. On that date he became unemployed by reason of a work stoppage resulting from a labor dispute between his union and his employer. The strike ended on August 8, 1956, and he was recalled to work on September 22, 1956, and is presently working for Westinghouse.

All the facts and circumstances of the labor dispute were presented and passed upon by this Court in Gray Unemployment Compensation Case, 187 Pa. Superior Ct. 425, 144 A.2d 856 (1958), in which we held that the work stoppage constituted a strike and that the striking claimants were disqualified for benefits under Section 402(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. The record indicates that the claimant, while on strike at Westinghouse, sought and obtained employment at H. W. Butterworth & Sons, Philmont Road, bethayers, Pa. The employment began on October 23, 1955 and ended by lay-off on March 9, 1956. He did not at any time sever his employment or resign from the job at Westinghouse nor did he give to his employer or anyone else any indication of an intention so to do. He testified that the new job paid $1.75 per hour plus bonus, on piece work, and his job at Westinghouse paid, prior to the strike, $2.10 1/2 cents per hour; that it was similar work; that "I said I would stay if the job was dependable because with the bonus there, it would be the same as I was getting and I said if I made out, I would stay there"; and that he joined the union but continued his membership in the Westinghouse union. He remained on the Westinghouse payroll as one of the striking employees, with all the benefits of fifteen years

[ 192 Pa. Super. Page 258]

    seniority, insurance and the other incidents of that employment. After said strike, he was recalled, and with other employees of Westinghouse ...


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.