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.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (06/03/81)

decided: June 3, 1981.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of James M. Foltz, No. B-160931 et al.

COUNSEL

Ralph G. Wellington, with him Bernard G. Segal, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, for petitioner.

William J. Kennedy, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for respondent.

Judges Mencer, MacPhail and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer. Judge Wilkinson, Jr. did not participate in the decision in this case.

Author: Mencer

[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 439]

United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) has appealed from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) granting benefits to James M. Foltz and 55 similarly situated UPS employees (claimants).

The claimants were employees of UPS at various locations in western Pennsylvania who belonged to the International Association of Machinists. On September 15, 1976, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Teamsters) initiated a work stoppage at the UPS facilities. The Board, after weighing the testimony of the claimants and UPS representatives, issued the following findings of fact concerning the events of the strike:

8. On September 15, 1976, the employer sent the claimant and other members of Lodge 1060 home early from work due to a fear for their safety based on violence which had occurred

[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 440]

    during a previous teamster's union work stoppage.

9. On September 21, 1976, the employer notified the claimant [and] some of the other employees that they should report for work.

10. At various job sites the members of the Teamsters Union blocked the ingress and egress of employees and other persons as well as company vehicles.

11. The claimant and other members of Lodge 1060 did not cross the picket line because they were specifically threatened with violence to their persons and motor vehicles. In the case of at least one member of Lodge 1060, ...


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.