Appeals by employer, from decisions of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Nos. B-89259(B), B-89261(B), B-89263(B), and B-89264(B), in re claims of John W. Alloway et al.
Harvey B. Levin, with him Herman Lazarus, Harold Jacobs, and Lazarus and Levin, for employer, appellant.
Marshall J. Seidman, with him Seidman and Rome, for employes, appellees.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Ervin, P. J., Wright, Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, and Hoffman, JJ. (Flood, J., absent). Opinion by Watkins, J. Wright, J., concurs in the result. Ervin, P. J., dissents. Concurring Opinion by Montgomery, J. Opinion by Hoffman, J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part.
[ 208 Pa. Super. Page 453]
These appeals from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review involve 99 employees of American Dredging Company, the appellant.
[ 208 Pa. Super. Page 454]
The employer is engaged in the business of river and harbor improvements in the Delaware River area. During the period of time here involved all of the claimants were members of Local 25, Marine Division, International Union of Operating Engineers and were working under one of two operating agreements, i.e., Drill Boat Agreement or the Dredging Agreement. Both of these agreements were in full force and effect at the time in question and contain clauses providing for final and binding arbitration of grievances and disputes and a prohibition against strikes, work stoppage or suspension of work.
Under the agreements, when work was available for members of the local, the employer requested the local, through its hiring hall, either by naming a specific member or the type of the employee needed and the union then referred the workman to the job. If the union failed to furnish an employee within 72 hours the employer could go to the general labor market to supply its needs.
On the night of October 31, 1963, members of the union met and voted to walk off their jobs. Their complaints consisted of claims of unsafe working conditions and abuse of the hiring procedure. The work stoppage continued until January 16, 1964, when an agreement was concluded. During the stoppage the company attempted to continue some of its jobs but was unsuccessful and finally forced to winterize and store the bulk of their operating equipment.
During the work stoppage the employer sent letters to the union, and twice to some, but not all of the registered members of the local, requesting their return to work and in one letter said that if they did not return by 4 o'clock p.m., December 2, 1963, the company would consider and treat them as though they had quit their jobs. Subsequent to this letter the employees were still importuned to return to their jobs. The
[ 208 Pa. Super. Page 455]
Board found as a fact that the claimants involved in these appeals were not discharged.
The Board in arriving at its decision found the work stoppage to be a labor dispute and divided the claimants into several categories, and determined each claimant's entitlement based on the facts and law applicable to the category in which he was ...