Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CONROY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. SCHMUCK UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. RADIO CORPORATION AMERICA v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW (09/11/69)

decided: September 11, 1969.

CONROY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. SCHMUCK UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW



Appeals from decisions and orders of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-67-5-F-137 and B-67-5-F-132, in re claims of Harold S. Schmuck et al. and John Leo Conroy.

COUNSEL

S. R. Zimmerman, III, with him Zimmerman, Zimmerman, Myers & Gibbel, for employer.

Jerome H. Gerber, with him Handler, Gerber and Widmer, for claimant, appellee, Schmuck, and for claimant, appellant, Conroy.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.

Wright, P. J., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, and Cercone, JJ. Opinion by Montgomery, J. Opinion by Wright, P. J., Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part. Watkins, J., joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.

Author: Montgomery

[ 215 Pa. Super. Page 85]

These are appeals from the decisions and orders of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, which granted benefits under the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law to Harold S. Schmuck, whose claim was filed in his own behalf and as the representative of eleven other employes, and which denied benefits to John Leo Conroy, whose claim

[ 215 Pa. Super. Page 86]

    was filed in his own behalf and as the representative of approximately 210 fellow employes similarly situated. The Bureau of Employment Security had ruled all claimants to be ineligible under Section 402(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Act, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Session, P. L. (1937) 2897, art. IV, § 402(d), as amended, 43 P.S. § 802; but after hearing both cases together, the referee affirmed the Bureau in the Conroy case and reversed the Bureau in the Schmuck case. The Board affirmed the referee in both cases. These appeals followed: one by Conroy, in which Radio Corporation of America (RCA) joined as intervening appellee, and the other by RCA, in the Schmuck case, in which Schmuck intervened as an appellee.

These claims arose when the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 1666 (IBEW), with approximately 3,950 members, struck the Lancaster, Pennsylvania, plant of RCA from June 4, 1967, through July 6, 1967. The IBEW agreement with RCA ended at midnight on June 1, 1967; and after the RCA and IBEW were unable to come to an agreement on a new contract, IBEW stopped working and established picket lines at the Lancaster plant, commencing at approximately 10:30 p.m. on June 4, 1967, and ending on July 6, 1967. Harold S. Schmuck was employed by RCA as a member of the Teamsters' Union, which had a collective bargaining agreement in effect with RCA during the strike. John Leo Conroy was a member of the International Association of Machinists, Local No. 1984 (IAM), which also had a collective bargaining agreement with RCA in force during the strike. Neither Schmuck nor Conroy was on strike.

In the Schmuck case, the Board found that there was work available for him and his fellow claimants, that he was willing to continue working, but that he was prevented from working because management advised

[ 215 Pa. Super. Page 87]

    him not to appear for work since it did not want anyone hurt or any damage done to equipment. For that reason he was directed not to try to enter the plant. These findings are supported by substantial competent testimony and are therefore binding upon us. Byerly ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.