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.

PROGRESS MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW. (CARR UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.) (04/13/61)

April 13, 1961

PROGRESS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW. (CARR UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.)



Appeals, Nos. 144 to 147, inclusive, Oct. T., 1960, by employer, from decisions of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Nos. B-55784, B-55781, B-55782, and B-55783, in re claims of Lillie R. Carr et al. Decision in each appeal reversed.

COUNSEL

Geoffrey J. Cunniff, with him Josephine H. Klein, for employer, appellant. 112

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

Richard Kirschner, with him Louis H. Wilderman, for claimant-intervenors, appellees.

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

Author: Ervin

[ 195 Pa. Super. Page 112]

OPINION BY ERVIN, J.

These four appeals apply to approximately 164 former employes of Progress Manufacturing Company, Inc. (hereinafter called "Progress" or "company"), all of whom were awarded unemployment compensation benefits by the Bureau of Employment Security, the referee and the Board of Review. The employer appealed.

The claimants were represented, for collective bargaining purposes, by Local 2005 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (hereinafter called "union"). The collective bargaining agreement between union and Progress contained the following provision: "The Union and Employer agree that there shall be no strikes, boycotts, lockouts, slow-downs, curtailment of work, restriction of production by employees during the life of this Agreement, and that in the event differences or disputes should arise between Employer or Union, or should any local trouble of any kind arise in the plant, there shall be no suspension of work by employees on account of such differences, but shall be processed as stated in Article IV, 'GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE', of this Agreement."

The agreement also contained a provision reserving to Progress the right to fire or suspend employes for cause.

On October 17, 1958 two employes were discharged by Progress. Their discharge was then reduced to a suspension and Progress agreed to submit the matter to arbitration if the whole working force reported to

[ 195 Pa. Super. Page 113]

    work on October 20, 1958. The union proposed that the dispute be arbitrated with the understanding that the two suspended employes be permitted to work until the arbitration award had been rendered. Progress rejected this proposal. Thereupon, on October 20, 1958, most of the 900 employes failed to report for work and operations entirely ceased on October 21, 1958. On October 24, 1958 Progress sent notices to all employes on the payroll as of October 17, which read as follows: "You are hereby notified that, due to your participation in the unlawful work stoppage at this plant, and because of your violation of Sec. 4, Para. (c) of the Company Policy Bulletin, you are suspended until further notice. When and if you are recalled you will be reinstated with full seniority rights, benefits, and other privileges. It is suggested that you do not undertake any action of any kind which might jeopardize your likelihood of recall." The other notice read as follows: "In order for the Company to determine when ...


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.