Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Labor Bd. of Review
| Decision Date | 11 March 1991 |
| Citation | 588 A.2d 396,246 N.J.Super. 523 |
| Parties | EASTERN AIR LINES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. STATE of New Jersey, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BOARD OF REVIEW, Judy T. Petzoldt and 218 Other Respondents Listed on Schedule A, Defendants-Respondents/Cross-Appellants. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Maurice J. Baumgarten admitted pro hac vice, for plaintiff-appellant/cross-respondent (Maurice J. Baumgarten and plaintiff-Jo Ann Burk of Cuyler, Burk & Matthews, attorneys, Florham Park, Maurice J. Baumgarten and Jo Ann Burk, Florham Park, on the brief and reply brief).
Mark Richard admitted pro hac vice, for defendants-respondents/cross-appellants Judy T. Petzoldt and 218 other respondents (Mark Richard and Jesse Strauss of Reitman, Parsonnet & Duggan, attorneys, Newark; Messrs. Mark Richard and Jesse Strauss, Newark, on the brief).
Robert J. Del Tufo, Atty. Gen., for defendant-respondent/cross-appellant Bd. of Review (Ellen A. Reichart, Deputy Atty. Gen., submitted a Statement In Lieu of Brief on behalf of Bd. of Review).
Before Judges PRESSLER, DEIGHAN and ARNOLD M. STEIN.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PRESSLER, P.J.A.D.
This unemployment compensation case involves the claims of 218 Newark-based flight attendants employed by respondent Eastern Airlines, Inc., who stopped work on March 4, 1989. Their initial individual claims were denied pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(d), which disqualifies an employee whose unemployment is due to a work stoppage caused by a labor dispute which the employee finances, participates in or is directly interested in. On appeal to the Appeal Tribunal, the Appeals Examiner, following a hearing, concluded that the claimants were disqualified from receiving benefits for that reason for the period from March 4, 1989, to July 2, 1989. She also, however, concluded that they were entitled to benefits for all periods of unemployment thereafter since as of the July date, the cause of their unemployment was not the labor dispute but the unavailability of work resulting from Eastern's closing of the Newark base. The Board of Review affirmed the decision of the Appeal Tribunal, and Eastern and the claimants respectively appealed and cross appealed. Eastern contends that the entire period of unemployment was due to the labor dispute. Claimants contend that the unavailability of work cause had superseded the labor dispute cause even prior to the July date. We affirm the administrative decision in its entirety based on the factual findings and conclusions of law of the agencies.
The essential facts were largely stipulated. The Newark-based flight attendants are members of Local 533 of the Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO (TWU). The lawful strike against Eastern which started on March 4, 1989, had initially been called by the International Association of Machinists (IAM). Prior to that date, the Air Lines Pilots Association (ALPA) and TWU had adopted resolutions supporting the machinists in their labor dispute with Eastern and calling upon their respective members to honor the IAM picket lines and withhold their own labor in the event IAM went on strike. Most, including these claimants, did so. Although Eastern had advised its employees prior to the strike that it intended to continue operations in the event of a strike, it in fact flew no flights out of Newark between March 4, 1989, and June 9, 1989, when three daily flights, as opposed to the pre-strike 18-flight daily schedule, began departing from Newark. Eastern had also advised its Newark-based flight attendants that if they would cross the picket lines, work would be provided for them at other bases. This message was reiterated in a mailgram sent by Eastern to its Newark-based flight attendants on March 6, 1989. The mailgram explained the mechanics of the preferential recall list Eastern was maintaining for non-striking attendants. It also advised the attendants that not only had Eastern's current schedule been reduced to 25% of its pre-strike operations but that a return to pre-strike levels was "problematic." Apparently some flight attendants did return to work and were employed. There was obviously, however, no Newark-based work for many weeks.
Several days after the strike began, Eastern filed for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C.A. § 1101 et seq. (1979). Its plan, filed on April 24, 1989, was predicated on a substantial operational reduction. In evident implementation of its plan, Eastern wrote to all its Newark and Boston-based striking flight attendants on May 1, 1989, notifying them that as of July 2, 1989, the flight attendant crew bases at Newark and Logan Airports would be permanently closed "due to a reduction in operations." The striking attendants were also then advised of their opportunity to protect their jobs by signing a preferential recall list for work at another base to be assigned by the employer. These claimants did not avail themselves of that opportunity.
Based on the foregoing facts, the Appeals Examiner found that on March 4, 1989, "... there was a total stoppage of work at the employer's Newark base of operations and that that stoppage was due to a labor dispute." We are satisfied that claimants do not seriously contest either this finding or the disqualification result which necessarily follows therefrom pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(d). In any event, we reject the suggestion that at some point prior to the July Newark Airport closing, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial