Appeals by employer, from decisions of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Nos. B-66-8-L-172 and B-66-8-L-173, in re claims of Robert L. Nelan et al.
John G. Wayman, with him John H. Hill, and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and William C. Sennett, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
A. E. Lawson, with him Bernard Kleiman, for intervening appellees.
Wright, P. J., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, and Cercone, JJ. Opinion by Watkins, J.
[ 215 Pa. Super. Page 311]
These are appeals in unemployment compensation cases from the decisions of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review that held a work stoppage at the Penn Manufacturing Corporation to be a lockout and not a strike, and so awarded benefits to the claimants.
The claimants are two plant employees of the Penn Manufacturing Corporation of Washington, Pennsylvania, Robert L. Nelan and Joseph Huffman, Jr. It has been stipulated by the parties that these appeals will determine the claims of fifty-six (56) other members of the local union of the United Steel Workers of America, in the appellant plant, affected by the work stoppage.
The referee, in two decisions following four hearings found in favor of the claimants; the Board of Review ruled unanimously, after argument, in favor of the claimants.
The claimants were represented in collective bargaining by the United Steel Workers of America which had negotiated contracts between the parties for a period of six (6) years. The most recent were dated August 1, 1962, June 1, 1964, and August 29, 1966.
[ 215 Pa. Super. Page 312]
By letter dated March 25, 1966 the union notified the company of a desire to start immediate collective bargaining negotiations for a new contract. The expiration date of the current agreement was May 31, 1966. Despite this request the first negotiating meeting was held May 19, 1966, at which meeting no progress was made.
A local union meeting was held on the evening of May 31, 1966. A Mr. Fergus, the company attorney, was contacted at the company office. The record indicates that the president of the company was also present in the company office at the time. According to the record Mr. Fergus was asked if there was something the union could do for "continuation of operations at the shop." It was suggested to the company that work continue under the same conditions as provided in the expiring contract until a new contract could be negotiated, subject to a ...