Appeal by employer, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-94928, in re claims of Warren C. Aheimer et al.
John G. Wayman, with him Scott F. Zimmerman, and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, for employer, appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Paul A. Simmons, for intervenors, claimants.
Ervin, P. J., Wright, Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, and Spaulding, JJ. Opinion by Watkins, J. Dissenting Opinion by Wright, J. Ervin, P. J., joins in this dissenting opinion.
[ 210 Pa. Super. Page 224]
This is an appeal in an unemployment compensation case by the employer-appellant, General Motors Corporation, Fisher Body Division, from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review that awarded benefits to Warren C. Aheimer, one of
[ 210 Pa. Super. Page 225]
the claimants-intervenors. There are 199 employees involved and the claimant's appeal will cover all except those who instituted separate appeals.
Local 544 of the United Auto Workers Union instituted a labor dispute at the Pittsburgh plant where the claimant worked and was a member of the union. Work stopped on September 25, 1964. It is clear, as of that time and until October 24, 1964, the claimant was not entitled to benefits under § 402(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS § 802(d), in that his unemployment was due to a labor dispute. The labor dispute was finally settled by a new national agreement on November 9, 1964. However, prior to the new national contract, on October 24, 1964, the claimant's local union and the employer, since all local issues had been settled, except as to checkoff, agreed to open the Pittsburgh plant on the basis of the old contract until the new one was executed. The claimant was recalled to work on October 24, 1964, under a work equalization sheet based on the prior agreement.
The employer had expected to recall all the employees of the Pittsburgh plant but due to matters caused by the strike, was unable to get into full production. The local union, when all employees were not called back complained about the manner of recall and insisted that the employees be recalled by seniority. The employer was not bound by contract to do this but made such an agreement with the union. The claimant was then laid off on October 28, 1964, and another employee called out in his place. The time in dispute is from October 28, 1964 to November 9, 1964.
The issue is a simple one. The employer contends that the claimant's unemployment was due to the labor dispute; the employee contends that although it is true that his original unemployment was due to a labor dispute, that disqualification ended when ...