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.

JOSEPH R. APPEL v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (04/06/89)

decided: April 6, 1989.

JOSEPH R. APPEL, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. WILLIAM D. SNYDER, PETITIONER V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. JOHN W. STRAIGHT, PETITIONER V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. JOHN V. KENNELLY, PETITIONER V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. DANIEL A. BOSH, AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED CLAIMANT-EMPLOYEES OF PITTSBURGH FORGINGS COMPANY, MEMBERS OF UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL UNION NO. 1779, PETITIONERS V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. RICHARD J. MUELLER, AND OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED CLAIMANT-EMPLOYEES OF PITTSBURGH FORGINGS COMPANY, MEMBERS OF UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA LOCAL UNION NO. 1779, PETITIONERS V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. JAMES R. STOPPERICH, PETITIONER V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. JAMES R. CROWE, PETITIONER V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. REGINALD G. BLAKE, SR., PETITIONER V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. EDWARD F. POOLA, PETITIONER V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. KENNETH R. COPELAND, PETITIONER V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. EDWARD L. MORTON, PETITIONER V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. FRANCIS D. ROBERTSON, PETITIONER V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. JOSEPH MARITZ, PETITIONER V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. WAYNE C. TORPECK, PETITIONER V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. ROBERT J. KRAWCHYK, PETITIONER V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. CHARLES J. SCHAVOLT, PETITIONER V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. JOSEPH F. FRITZ, PETITIONER V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. JOSEPH M. BUCEK, PETITIONER V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Appeals from the Orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in the cases of In Re: Claims of Joseph F. Fritz, No. B-266349; Charles J. Schavolt, No. B-266350; Wayne C. Torpeck, No. B-266351; Joseph Maritz, No. B-266352; Joseph M. Bucek, No. B-266353; Robert J. Krawchyk, No. B-266354; Daniel A. Bosh, No. B-262387; John V. Kennelly, No. B-262388; William D. Snyder, No. B-262389; John W. Straight, No. B-262390; Joseph R. Appel, No. B-262391; Richard J. Mueller, No. B-264465; Edward L. Morton, No. B-264466; Kenneth R. Copeland, No. B-264467; Edward F. Poola, No. B-264468; Reginald G. Blake, Sr., No. B-264469; Francis D. Robertson, No. B-264470; James R. Crowe, No. B-264471 and James R. Stopperich, No. B-264473.

COUNSEL

Richard E. Gordon, Grossinger, Gordon & Vatz, for petitioners.

John Herzog, Assistant Counsel, with him, James K. Bradley, Assistant Counsel, and Clifford F. Blaze, Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Barry and Smith, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Smith.

Author: Smith

[ 124 Pa. Commw. Page 635]

Joseph R. Appel (Claimant), representative claimant,*fn1 appeals from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed the referee's denial of benefits pursuant to Sections 4(u)

[ 124 Pa. Commw. Page 636]

    and 404(d)(ii) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn2 The Board's decision is affirmed.

Claimant, a member of the United Steelworkers of America, Local No. 1779 (Union), was employed by Pittsburgh Forgings Company (Employer). According to prior practice, Employer posted a notice of vacation shutdown on June 15, 1987 indicating that the Coraopolis plant would be down for a four-week vacation and inventory for the weeks beginning July 6, July 13, July 20 and July 27. The notice further stated that normal operations were scheduled to resume Monday August 3, 1987. A second notice was posted on June 22, 1987 providing the employees with details regarding vacation checks, regular paychecks, and extra work available during the shutdown. This notice reiterated that start-up of normal operations would commence August 3, 1987.

Prior to these notices, Employer and the Union were negotiating terms for a new collective bargaining agreement. The existing agreement would expire on June 30, 1987. Employer, in anticipation of a work stoppage, shipped work to its sister plant in Jackson, Mississippi. On June 30, 1987, an agreement was reached between Employer and Union to extend the existing contract until August 31, 1987. As scheduled, the plant shutdown commenced on July 6, 1987 and work resumed on August 3, 1987. Claimant received vacation pay on July 3, 1987. As a direct result of the shutdown, Claimant applied for unemployment compensation benefits with the Office of Employment Security (OES) which determined Claimant to be ineligible because he was not indefinitely separated from work as required under Section 404(d)(ii) of the Law and that the plant shutdown was properly designated as vacation time for the allocation of vacation pay.

[ 124 Pa. Commw. Page 637]

The referee and Board affirmed. Hence, Claimant's petition to this Court for review.*fn3

Issues presented to this Court for review are whether the Board correctly concluded that the Employer shutdown was properly allocated as a vacation period; and whether the Board properly concluded that Claimant was not ...


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.