Appeals, Nos. 90 and 91, April T., 1962, by claimants, from decisions of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Nos. B-65071-B and B-65065-B, in re claims of Michael J. Mosko et al. Decisions affirmed.
Ines W. Cordisco, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Raymond Kleiman, Deputy Attorney General, and David Stahl, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.
[ 199 Pa. Super. Page 73]
In these unemployment compensation cases the Board of Employment Security, the Referee and the
[ 199 Pa. Super. Page 74]
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review all concluded that the claimants were disqualified for benefits in that their unemployment was due to an industrial dispute under the provisions of § 402(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS § 802(d).
Michael J. Mosko and Klement E. Segina, the claimants, were last employed at the Duquesne Works of the United States Steel Corporation, in the electric furnace department, on July 4, 1959. They were members of United Steelworkers of America, Local 1256. From July 15, 1959 to November 7, 1959 the Duquesne Works was shut due to the industry-wide steel strike called by the United Steelworkers of America.
There is no question that the work stoppage from July 15, 1959 to November 7, 1959, was the result of an industrial dispute. The law is clear that under the provisions of § 402(d), no person unemployed because of a work stoppage which exists because of a labor dispute can secure unemployment compensation unless he can prove that he is not directly interested in the labor dispute; is not a member of the participating union; and is not of the same grade or class of workers as the strikers. Oluschak Unemployment Compensation Case, 192 Pa. Superior Ct. 255, 159 A.2d 750 (1960). These claimants would be unable to so prove as they were admittedly members of the union participating in the strike, long-time employees of this company and directly interested in its successful outcome. The appeals in these cases are from the denial by the compensation authorities of benefits for the weeks beginning with the week ending July 18, up to and including the week ending November 7th. This was the strike period. Nothing else is before us. The record disclosed an agreement that the two claims before us will be dispositive "to all employees in the electric furnace department." The question involved can be decided without taking into consideration the difference
[ 199 Pa. Super. Page 75]
in the factual situation, in that one of them was called back for a few days during ...