Aitken v. Bd. Of Review Of Unemployment Comp. Comm'n
| Decision Date | 12 January 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 203.,203. |
| Citation | 56 A.2d 587,136 N.J.L. 372 |
| Parties | AITKEN et al. v. BOARD OF REVIEW OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari by Andrew Aitken and others opposed by Hinde & Dauch Paper Company to review a decision of the Board of Review of the Unemployment Compensation Commission of New Jersey denying unemployment benefits to prosecutors.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court.
It appears from an examination of the facts in this case that the prosecutors were not entitled to unemployment compensation.
Harry Green, of Newark, for prosecutors.
Clarence F. McGovern, of Jersey City, for Board of Review of Unemployment Compensation Commission.
Starr, Summerill & Lloyd, of Camden, for Hinde & Dauch Paper Co.
October term, 1947, before BODINE, HEHER and WACHENFELD, JJ.
A writ of certiorari is this case was allowed to review the decision of the Board of Review of the Unemployment Compensation Commission dated January 20, 1947, denying unemployment benefits to the proscutors, members of a Local Union. They did not work because a picket line had been established by another Union from another state and this they would not cross.
The conclusion of the Board of Review was that the voluntary refusal of the claimants to cross the picket line amounted to participation in a labor dispute at the place of employment, and for that reason they were disqualified. R.S. 43:21-5, N.J.S.A.
The Hinde & Dauch Paper Company have a manufacturing plant at Gloucester, N. J., and also one at Sandusky, Ohio. In the first instance, there was no work stoppage at the Gloucester City plant. There was a strike at the Sandusky, Ohio plant. The workers at the Gloucester City plant were satisfied with their working conditions and had no grievance. The Local Union at the Gloucester plant at first protested against and refused to support in any financial way the Sandusky strike, but the Sandusky strikers came into New Jersey and established a picket line.
It is argued that since there was no labor dispute at the New Jersey plant the workers were entitled to their unemployment benefits.
The statute, R.S. 43:21-5, N.J.S.A., so far as pertinent, is as follows: ‘An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: * * * (d) For any week with respect to which it is found that his total unemployment is due to a stoppage of work which exists because of a labor dispute at the factory, establishment, or other premises at which he is or was last employed; provided, that this subsection shall not apply if it is shown that:
‘(1) He is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the labor dispute which caused the stoppage of work; and
‘(2) He does not belong to a grade or class of workers of which, immediately before the commencement of the stoppage, there were members employed at the premises at which the stoppage occurs, any of whom are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Giant Food, Inc. v. Dept. of Labor
...(1977); Trans World Airlines v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm'n, 627 S.W.2d 335, 339 (Mo.Ct.App.1982); Aitken v. Board of Review, 136 N.J.L. 372, 374, 56 A.2d 587, 588-89 (N.J. 1948). 3. All references to "section 8-1004" shall mean Maryland Code (1991), section 8-1004 of the Labor & Employ......
-
Speagle v. U.S. Steel Corp.
...Baldassaris v. Egan, 135 Conn. 695, 68 A.2d 120; American Brake Shoe Co. v. Annunzio, 405 Ill. 44, 90 N.E.2d 83; Aitken v. Board of Review, 136 N.J.L. 372, 56 A.2d 587. See, also, 28 A.L.R.2d Within this framework we shall discuss the evidence pertaining to each appellant seriatim. I. Speag......
-
Meyer v. Industrial Com'n of Mo.
... ... unemployment benefits. Section 9431 II (a), R. S. Mo. 1939, ... as ... Commission, 24 Cal.2d 695, 151 P.2d 202; Aitken v ... Board of Review (N. J., 1948), 56 A.2d 587; Brown ... ...
-
Ex parte McCleney
...Baldassaris v. Egan, 135 Conn. 695, 68 A.2d 120; American Brake Shoe Co. v. Annunuzio, 405 Ill. 44, 90 N.E.2d 83; Aitken v. Board of Review, 136 N.J.L. 372, 56 A.2d 587. See, also, 28 A.L.R.2d 333.' (Brackets In Pledger, the Court of Appeals said: 'Had the trial court determined that Mr. Pl......