Mortensen v. Board of Review, Division of Employment Sec., A--422

• Citation: 117 A.2d 137,37 N.J.Super. 236
• Decision Date: 13 October 1955
• Docket Number: No. A--422,A--422
• Parties: Frederick C. MORTENSEN et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, New Jersey Department ofLabor and Industry, and Bethlehem Steel Company, Shipbuilding Division,Respondents. . Appellate Division
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division

Page 236

37 N.J.Super. 236

117 A.2d 137

Frederick C. MORTENSEN et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, New Jersey

Department ofLabor and Industry, and Bethlehem

Steel Company, Shipbuilding Division,Respondents.

No. A--422.

Superior Court of New Jersey.

Appellate Division.

Argued Sept. 27, 1955.

Decided Oct. 13, 1955.

Abraham L. Friedman, Newark, for appellants (Rothbard, Harris & Oxfeld, Newark, attorneys).

George J. Miller, Trenton, for respondent Board of Review, etc.

Charles Danzig, Newark, for respondent Bethlehem Steel Co., etc. (Riker, Emery & Danzig, Newark, attorneys; Dickinson R. Debevoise, Newark, on the brief; Cravath, Swaine & Moore (of New York Bar), New York City, of counsel).

Before Judges CLAPP, JAYNE and FRANCIS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

FRANCIS, J.A.D.

Appellants, employees of the Bethlehem Steel Company, Shipbuilding Division, were adjudged disqualified from unemployment compensation benefits by the Board of Review, Division of Employment Security. The denial was predicated upon a determination that the cessation of their employment was due to a stoppage of work which existed because of a labor dispute.

The pertinent statute, R.S. 43:21--5, N.J.S.A., provides that:

'An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:

'(d) For any week with respect to which it is found that his 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; * * *.'

The plaintiffs' union had a collective bargaining contract with the employer. It was to expire on June 23, 1954. Section 1 of Article 24 thereof provided that:

'Either party may on any day between April 13, and April 23, 1954, give notice to the other party of the desire of the party giving such notice to negotiate with respect to the terms and conditions of a new agreement on wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other conditions of employment * * *. If the parties shall not agree with respect to any of such matters (including pensions and insurance) by midnight of June 23, 1954, either party may thereafter resort to strike or lockout as the case may be in support of its position in respect of such matters * * *.'

On April 15, 1954 the union gave the required 60-day notice of its intention to seek a new agreement involving a basic wage increase, increases in incentive pay rates, holiday pay, overtime pay and shift differential pay. The exact form of the notice does not appear but in referring to it at the hearing the Chariman of the Board said 'Then a strike notice was given?

'Mr. Rothbard: Right. Sixty days' notice was given April 15th, I guess, because the contract was to expire June 23.'

Negotiations began on the various new demands of the union but by June 23 the parties were still in dispute with respect to them. On that day, the union wrote the employer:

'You have advised us that your customers may be reluctant to let to your Companies, and your Companies may be reluctant to accept contracts for repair and other work at your Yards, if our members shall be free to strike on June 24, 1954. You have assured us that your Companies will continue in good faith the serious bargaining for new agreements with our Union, and that you will devote as much time thereto as reasonably possible to assure substantial and rapid progress in such bargaining and the working out of new agreements at the earliest possible date.

'Consequently, in order to enable your Companies to obtain work and thus keep our members employed, while at the same time affording our respective negotiating committees an opportunity to continue zealous efforts to arrive at new agreements, our Union has, in reliance upon your aforesaid assurances, decided that it will not call on our members to strike at your Yards prior to July 23, 1954, nor without giving you 15 calendar days' written notice of our intention to do so, provided that your Companies will, in return, during this period continue to afford our Union and the employees all the benefits, conditions, procedures, and practices presently provided for and obtaining under the Agreements and otherwise.'

The differences not having been settled, on July 7 the union again wrote to the company as follows:

'This is to give...