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.
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.
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
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 ...