Erie Forge & Steel Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review

• Decision Date: 30 June 1960
• Citation: 163 A.2d 91,400 Pa. 440
• Parties: ERIE FORGE AND STEEL CORPORATION, Appellee, v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW. Appeal of Carl E. SHERICK. Appeal of Edward C. PAPSUN. Appeal of Richard J. KOSOBUCKI. Appeal of Henry VROTNEY. Appeal of William Henry HARTMAN. Appeal of Raymond D'ONOFRIO.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

163 A.2d 91

400 Pa. 440

ERIE FORGE AND STEEL CORPORATION, Appellee, v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW.

Appeal of Carl E. SHERICK. Appeal of Edward C. PAPSUN. Appeal of Richard J. KOSOBUCKI. Appeal of Henry VROTNEY. Appeal of William Henry HARTMAN. Appeal of Raymond D'ONOFRIO.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 30, 1960.

James G. Hanes, Erie, Sidney G. Handler, Harrisburg, for appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Asst. Atty. Gen., Anne X. Alpern, Atty. Gen., David C. Harrison, Deputy Atty. Gen., for U. C. Board.

John E. Britton, Henry A. MacDonald, Gifford, Graham, MacDonald &amp Illig, Erie, for Erie Forge & Steel Corp.

Before CHARLES ALVIN JONES, C. J., and MUSMANNO, BENJAMIN R JONES, COHEN, BOK, and EAGEN, JJ.

COHEN, Justice.

These are appeals by the claimants from the judgments of the Superior Court denying unemployment compensation to the claimants. The Superior Court determined that the claimants were unemployed because the work stoppage was the result of a strike and not a lockout. Administratively, the Bureau first denied the claimants compensation but the referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review determined that the work stoppage was a lockout and allowed compensation to the claimants and their fellow employees.

On Appeal to the Superior Court, determinations of the referee and the Bureau were reversed and we allowed the petition for appeal to our Court.

Negotiations had been going on for some time. The Union asked for a five cent per hour increase and certain fringe benefits pertaining to insurance and pensions which would have totaled approximately nine cents an hour. The Company made no offer on wages and fringe benefits until August 26 when it offered six cents an hour increase to be divided between wages and fringe benefits in whatever way the Union desired. The increase was, however, contingent upon the fact that the premiums and tonage systems would be abolished. Although all the employees were offered the hourly increase, the evidence shows that some, although not all of those on incentive pay, would be subject to a loss of take home pay.

On August 28, at a Union meeting the Company offer was rejected and on Monday, August 30, the Union informed the employers of the result of the meeting and stated that if a new contract was not consummated by midnight August 31 (when the old contract expired), a strike would take place.

At a meeting on the evening of August 31, the employees proposed to the Company that they continue working on the basis of the existing agreement for an indefinite period of time with a five day cancellation clause by either party to permit additional time for negotiations. The employer refused to agree to such extension and informed the Union that work would be available only on the basis of its original offer. The employees refused to accept the Company's proposal. The employees continued to work their regular shifts until midnight, August 31. Those on the 11:00 shift reported at 11:00 and worked until midnight. Operations at the plant did not cease until midnight. The employer continued to hold its plant open and there was work available for the claimants and their fellow employees, but only under the new conditions of employment laid down by the employer.

The above statement represents the material facts as recited by Judge Woodside in his opinion for the court in 188 Pa.Super. 450, 146 A.2d 751 (1958).

In the very delicate and sensitive negotiations which are involved in the development of a new collective bargaining agreement to replace one that is nearing its expiration, all parties must be sincere in their desire to maintain the continued operation of the employer's enterprise. The law contemplates that collective bargaining will be conducted in good faith, with a sincere purpose to find a basis for agreement. Neither an adamant attitude of 'no contract, no work' on the part of the employees, nor an ultimatum laid down by the employer that work will be available only on his (employer's) terms, are serious manifestations of a desire to continue the operation of the enterprise. While either or both of these positions may legitimately be taken by the parties during the bargaining negotiations prior to the expiration of the existing contract, when the contract has in fact expired and a new agreement has not yet been negotiated, the sole test under § 402(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897, art. IV, § 402; as amended by the Act of June 20, 1939, P.L. 458, § 2; Act of April 23, 1942, P.L. 60, § 4; Act of May 29, 1945, P.L. 1145, § 9; Act of June 30, 1947, P.L. 1186, § 2; Act of May 23, 1949, P.L. 1738, § 11, 43 P.S. § 802(d), ^[1] of...