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.

GLADIEUX FOOD SERVICES v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (11/17/76)

decided: November 17, 1976.

GLADIEUX FOOD SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLEE. DISTRICT LODGE 141, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, INTERVENING PARTY APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of David A. Laskey, et al., No. B-124991-B.

COUNSEL

Thomas D. MacMullan, for appellant.

Sandra S. Christianson, Assistant Attorney General, with her Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.

Richard Kirschner, with him Neal Goldstein, and Markowitz & Kirschner, for intervening appellee.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Judge Kramer did not participate. Opinion by Judge Blatt. Dissenting Opinion by Judge Crumlish Jr.

Author: Blatt

[ 27 Pa. Commw. Page 144]

Gladieux Food Services, Inc. (Gladieux) has appealed a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), dated September 25, 1975, which granted unemployment compensation benefits to David A. Laskey*fn1 (claimant). The claimant is a member of Teamsters Local 249 (union) which represents the employees at Gladieux's in-flight kitchen facility at the Pittsburgh airport. The collective bargaining agreement between Gladieux and the union expired on April 30, 1974. Prior to the expiration of the contract, the parties had engaged in collective bargaining, but had been unable to agree on new terms and conditions of employment. At or about 10:00 P.M. on April 30, the union members voted not to strike and consequently the appropriate employees then reported for work on the midnight shift on May 1, 1974. The airlines which utilized Gladieux's facility to provide food to the passengers on their flights, however,

[ 27 Pa. Commw. Page 145]

    had notified Gladieux prior to the expiration of the contract that they would cease utilizing Gladieux's facility due to the unsettled labor situation until such time as they could be assured of receiving uninterrupted service.*fn2 The employees continued to report to work until May 9, 1974, when Gladieux closed its facility for lack of work. The claimant was granted unemployment compensation benefits effective as of that date by the Bureau of Employment Security, that decision was affirmed by the Board, and this appeal followed.

Our scope of review of a decision of the unemployment compensation authorities is to determine whether or not errors of law have been committed, and, absent fraud, whether or not the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, leaving questions of credibility and weight of evidence to the Board. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Tickle, 19 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 550, 339 A.2d 864 (1975).

The purpose of our unemployment compensation system is to compensate an individual who has become unemployed through no fault of his own. Section 3 of the Unemployment Compensation Law*fn3 (Act), 43 P.S. § 752. Section 402(d) of the Act, 43 P.S. § 802(d) provides, inter alia, as follows:

An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week --

[ 27 Pa. Commw. Page 146]

In which his unemployment is due to a stoppage of work, which exists because of a labor dispute (other than a lock-out) at the factory, establishment or other premises at which he is or was last employed. . . .

When a work stoppage has occurred due to a labor dispute, it is necessary to determine the party whose action constituted the final cause thereof, and to assess responsibility against that party. Bokoski Unemployment Compensation Case, 206 Pa. Superior Ct. 96, 211 A.2d 124 (1965). If fault is attributable to both the employer and the employees, compensation must be denied because the purpose of the unemployment compensation law is to benefit faultless employees. Toma v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 4 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 38, 285 A.2d 201 (1971). In Vrotney Unemployment Compensation Case, 400 Pa. 440, 444-445, 163 ...


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.