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.

QUAKER OATS COMPANY v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (02/26/82)

decided: February 26, 1982.

THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. CEREAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 221, AFL-CIO, INTERVENOR



Appeals from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the cases of In Re: Claim of Helen C. Newmayer, No. B-182969; Claim of Lorenzo Villarrial, No. B-182970; Claim of Winifred Bleyer, No. B-182971; Claim of Ronald Johnson, No. B-182972; Claim of Rosemarie Shulda, No. B-182973; Claim of Lorenzo L. Dorsey, No. B-182974; Claim of Lois Kisner, No. B-182975; and Claim of Linda E. Nailor, No. B-182976.

COUNSEL

Michael T. Welch, with him Norman I. White, of McNees, Wallace & Nurick, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

Paul J. Dellasega, with him Ira H. Weinstock, for intervenor.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Craig

[ 65 Pa. Commw. Page 34]

The Quaker Oats Company, the employer, appeals a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which affirmed a referee's determination that the eight claimants are entitled to benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1

The essential facts are not in dispute. The employer laid off all the claimants before August 20, 1979. On August 20, the Cereal Workers Directly Affiliated Local Union 221 began a strike against the employer, which continued until November 27, 1979. Each claimant is a member of the union.

Throughout the strike, the employer continued operating with management personnel. By letters dated August 30, 1979, the employer recalled the claimants, effective September 4, 1979, to work in "utility" jobs which were vacant because the employees who held them were on strike. When laid off, the claimants had held positions other than "utility" jobs. None of the claimants reported for work September 4 in response to the letters. During the strike, the work tendered to the claimants at the employer's plant was

[ 65 Pa. Commw. Page 35]

    available due to the labor dispute; after the strike ended, none of the claimants were recalled due to a lack of available work.

The issues are whether (1) the claimants were ineligible for benefits under Section 402(d) of the Law*fn2 on the ground that their unemployment was due to a work stoppage caused by a labor dispute in which, as members of the striking union, claimants were interested, or (2) the claimants, even though laid off before the strike, were ineligible under Section 402(a) of the Law,*fn3 for failure to accept suitable work.

The referee and board concluded that Section 402(d) was inapplicable to the claimants, and that the work offered claimants was not suitable work because the jobs were vacant as a ...


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.