Appeals, Nos. 113, 114, 115, 116, 117 and 118, March T., 1959, from judgments of Superior Court, April T., 1957, Nos. 96 to 99, inclusive, 101 and 102, reversing Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-43717, in case of Erie Forge and Steel Corporation v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review et al. Judgments reversed.
Sidney G. Handler, with him James G. Hanes, for appellants.
David C. Harrison, Deputy Attorney General, with him Sidney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.
John E. Britton, with him Henry A. MacDonald and Gifford, Graham, MacDonald & Illig, for employer, appellee.
Before Jones, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Bok and Eagen, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE COHEN.
These are appeals by the claimants from the judgments of the Superior Court denying unemployment compensation to the claimants. The Superior Court determined that the claimants were unemployed because the work stoppage was the result of a strike and not a lockout. Administratively, the Bureau first denied the claimants compensation but the referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review determined that the work stoppage was a lockout and allowed compensation to the claimants and their fellow employees.
On appeal to the Superior Court, determinations of the referee and the Bureau were reversed and we allowed the petition for appeal to our Court.
Negotiations had been going on for some time. The Union asked for a five cent per hour increase and certain fringe benefits pertaining to insurance and pensions which would have totaled approximately nine cents an hour. The Company made no offer on wages
and fringe benefits until August 26 when it offered six cents an hour increase to be divided between wages and fringe benefits in whatever way the Union desired. The increase was, however, contingent upon the fact that the premiums and tonnage systems would be abolished. Although all the employees were offered the hourly increase, the evidence shows that some, although not all of those on incentive pay, would be subject to a loss of take home pay.
On August 28, at a Union meeting the Company offer was rejected and on Monday, August 30 the Union informed the employers of the result of the meeting and stated that if a new contract was not consummated by midnight August 31 ...