Appeal, No. 257, Oct. T., 1963, by employer trade association, from decisions of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appeals Nos. B-9-E-3333 to 3335, and Nos. B-9-E-3336 to 3399, decisions Nos. B-73753(B) and B-73754(B), in re claims of James Southerland et al. Decisions affirmed.
Robert G. Kelly, with him Kelly, Deasey & Scanlan, for appellants.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Walter E. Alessandroni, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Abraham E. Freedman, with him Martin J. Vigderman, and Freedman, Landy and Lorry, for intervening appellees.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.
[ 202 Pa. Super. Page 150]
OPINION BY MONTGOMERY, J.
The Philadelphia Marine Trade Association is the employers' collective bargaining agent for the Port of Philadelphia and has appealed in behalf of some of its principals from decisions of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review allowing benefits to those members of Local 1291 who last had been employed by the Atlantic and Gulf Stevedoring Company, on July
[ 202 Pa. Super. Page 1513]
, 1959, to unload the S.S. Caribe docked at Pier 38 South, loaded with cargo of 100-pound bags of sugar, and also allowing benefits to numerous other claimants some of whom were the remaining members of Local 1291 who had not been employed to unload the S.S. Caribe, as previously mentioned, and others who were members of Locals 1242, 1332, and 1566, I.L.A., connected with the Port of Philadelphia.
The members of Local 1291 were stevedores who loaded and unloaded cargo from the vessels.The members of Local 1242 were clerks and checkers who kept records of cargoes entering and leaving the Port. The members of Local 1332 were carloaders who handled the freight before it was loaded onto the vessels and after it had been removed therefrom. The members of Local 1566 were carpenters and maintenance men whose duties were performed both on the vessels and on the piers. The intervening appellees represented all these groups.
Both the referee and the board found that the unemployment of claimants was due to a lockout by the appellant and not such a labor dispute as would have rendered claimants ineligible to recover benefits under section 402(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897, art. IV, § 402, 43 P.S. 802(d), as amended. The Bureau of Unemployment Security initially had held that those claimants who had been hired to unload the ship were ineligible but that all of the others were eligible. The referee and the board reversed the bureau as to those who had been held ineligible and held all to be eligible for benefits.
It has been stated repeatedly in cases of this kind that "'The credibility of the witnesses, the weight of their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from it are for the board. Our duty is ...