Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Joseph C. Lozaro (Token), No. B-226278-B.
Joel M. Scheer, Fishbone, Refowich & Scheer, for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
Michael F. Healy, Newman & Holtzinger, P.C., with him, Bruce F. Bratton, Connelly, Martsolf & Reid, for intervenor, Harsco Corporation.
Judges Craig and Colins, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Colins. Judge Barry did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 91 Pa. Commw. Page 429]
Joseph C. Lozaro (petitioner)*fn1 appeals an order of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, affirming a referee's decision denying him benefits under the provisions of Section 402(d) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).*fn2
[ 91 Pa. Commw. Page 430]
Petitioner was employed by Manganese Steel, a division of Harsco Corporation (employer) for a period of 18-1/2 years, and is a member of Local 1079 of the United Steel Workers of America (Union). A collective bargaining agreement existed between the employer and the union with an effective date of September 1, 1980 and an expiration date of August 31, 1983.
On September 1, 1983 at 7:00 A.M., petitioner and 195 other union members commenced a work stoppage due to a labor dispute.*fn3 Peaceful picket lines were set up at the site of the labor dispute and continued throughout the period of the strike. However, neither the petitioner nor any other union members made any attempt to report for work during the period of the strike, even though continuing work was available to them under the same terms and conditions of the expired collective bargaining agreement,*fn4 and even though the gates were never locked at the employer's plant.
Prior to the strike, the employer announced that two of its divisions, including the Manganese Steel
[ 91 Pa. Commw. Page 431]
Division, would be closing due to economic circumstances.*fn5 As a result of this announcement, an agreement was entered into by the Union and the employer whereby the employees of the affected division would have the right to ...