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.

12/31/97 JOSEPH C. STRINGENT v. UNEMPLOYMENT

December 31, 1997

JOSEPH C. STRINGENT, WILBER HENDRICKSON, ROBERT E. SHUMAKER, AND RONALD F. YERICH, PETITIONERS
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Appealed From No. B-360274. State Agency, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.

Before: Honorable Dan Pellegrini, Judge, Honorable Jim Flaherty, Judge, Honorable Charles P. Mirarchi, Jr., Senior Judge. Judge Leadbetter did not participate in the decision in this case. Opinion BY Judge Flaherty.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Flaherty

BY JUDGE FLAHERTY

FILED: December 31, 1997

Presently before this court is Joseph Stringent's (Claimant) petition for review from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board). *fn1 The Board affirmed an order of the Unemployment Compensation Referee denying benefits. We affirm.

The Board made the following findings of fact:

1. For purposes of this appeal, the claimant last worked as a plant employee for Sani-Dairy [(Employer)] and his last day of work was July 31, 1996.

2. The claimant worked under a collective bargaining agreement (Contract) between the employer and the United Steelworkers of America, Local 12755, District 10 (union) which expired May 15, 1996.

3. The claimant is a member of United Steelworkers of America, Local 12755, District 10, who is representing the claimant and all other co-workers who are claimant [sic] also.

4. Prior to the expiration of the contract, the union and the employer had negotiated for a new agreement, but at the time of the expiration of the contract, no settlement had been reached on the terms and conditions of a new contract.

5. Subsequent to May 15, 1996, the union and the employer had a series of agreements to continue working under the terms and conditions of the pre-existing contract while negotiations continued.

6. The parties were unable to resolve their differences on one particular major issue. The employer informed the union that if it did not change its position on that issue, it would implement its final offer on July 15, 1996.

7. The union sub-director of District 10, representing all of the claimants, was notified by the employer's labor consultant on July 11, 1996, in writing, that the employer was willing to maintain the status quo of the expired labor agreement between the parties dated June 1, 1993 to May 15, 1996 until further notice and to delay implementation of its final offer and was also contacted in person by telephone prior to August 1, 1996.

8. Subsequent negotiations did not lead to any progress. The negotiations broke off some time during the third week of July, 1996. However, the employer was still willing to offer work under the terms of the existing agreement.

9. Because the negotiations had broken off, on July 28, 1996, the union notified the employer that a work stoppage would take place at the ...


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.