Appeal from the Orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the cases of In Re: Claim of Lonnie K. Celli, No. B-231217; Claim of William Morris, No. B-231218; Claim of James E. Sumey, No. B-231219; Claim of Robert A. Brady, No. B-231220; Claim of James D. Russell, Jr., No. B-231221; Claim of Edward M. Pluto, No. B-231222; Claim of John J. Todak, No. B-231223; Claim of Eugene J. Ozanich, No. B-231224; Claim of David Mudery, No. B-231225; Claim of Joseph B. Spak, No. B-231226; Claim of Edwin E. Victor, No. B-231227; Claim of William M. Morris, Jr., No. B-231228; Claim of Elias Deeb, No. B-231229; Claim of Michael Arndt, No. B-231230; Claim of Dwayne R. Hair, No. B-231232; and Claim of David J. Wolfe, No. B-231233.
Henry R. Beeson, for petitioners.
James K. Bradley, Associate Counsel, with him, Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Colins, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 96 Pa. Commw. Page 235]
Lonnie K. Celli and other similarly situated claimants*fn1 appeal Unemployment Compensation Board of Review orders denying them benefits because the
[ 96 Pa. Commw. Page 236]
work stoppage in which they participated was determined to be a strike and not a lockout for the period during which they applied for compensation.*fn2 Section 402(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn3 We affirm.
The claimants were truck drivers for the Georjan Trucking Company of Uniontown. All are members of Local 491 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. The claimants commenced the work stoppage on September 30, 1983. At a negotiating session on November 22, 1983, the terms of a tentative labor management agreement had been reached, reduced to writing, and forwarded to the employer's attorney. The Board found that the employer refused to sign the final draft of the agreement because three non-economic items, tentatively agreed to, had been omitted from the final draft of the agreement.*fn4 On November 25, 1983, the Union removed its pickets from the employer's premises. However, the Board also found that (1) the Union did not notify the employer on November 25th or thereafter that the employees were willing to work under the same conditions and terms existing prior to the work stoppage and (2) work was available to the claimants on that day and thereafter.
The Board having found that the Union failed to sustain its burden of proving that the work stoppage was a
[ 96 Pa. Commw. Page 237]
lockout, our scope of review is limited to determining whether the Board's findings of fact can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence and whether an error of law was committed. Dennis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 55 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 215, 423 A.2d 458 (1980).
The claimants contend that the Board erred in not concluding that the work stoppage was converted from a strike to a lockout when the employer refused to call back the employees after ...