Radice v. N.J. Dept. Of Labor & Indus.
| Decision Date | 02 July 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. A-248.,A-248. |
| Citation | 67 A.2d 313 |
| Parties | RADICE et al. v. NEW JERSEY DEPT. OF LABOR & INDUSTRY, DIVISION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, BOARD OF REVIEW et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Board of Review, Division of Unemployment Compensation.
Proceeding for unemployment compensation benefits by Joseph Radice, and others against New Jersey Department of Labor and Industry, Division of Unemployment Compensation, Board of Review, and Trenton Times Corporation. From a decision of the Board of Review, reversing a determination of the appeal tribunal and declaring Joseph Radice and others ineligible for benefits, Joseph Radice and others appeal.
Decision reversed and matter remanded.
Before Judges JACOBS, EASTWOOD and BIGELOW.
George Pellettieri, Trenton, argued the cause for appellants.
Clarence F. McGovern, Trenton, argued the cause for respondent, Board of Review.
Frank I. Casey, Trenton argued the cause for respondent, Trenton Times Corporation.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Review, Division of Unemployment Compensation, reversing a determination of the Appeal Tribunal and declaring the appellants to be ineligible for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, R.S. 43:21-1 et seq., N.J.S.A.
On January 11, 1946, a strike at the newspaper plant of the Trenton Times Corporation was called by Local 71 of the International Typographical Union of which the appellants are members. Thereafter, the strikers were replaced and, as found by the Board of Review, the employer's normal operations were fully restored by August 1, 1946. The dispute between the employer and the Union has, nevertheless, continued and pickets have been maintained at the employer's plant.
In furtherance of its strike activities, the Union founded a daily newspaper known and operated as The Trentonian and many of the appellants were assigned by the Union to perform work in its publication and distribution, along with their other strike duties. Thus, the secretary of the Local testified that his strike duties included ‘Picketing, distributing circulars, addressing and mailing literature, working in the composing room, canvassing for the Union, canvassing the general public asking for strike support, acting as speaker in committees and various organizations, directing the advertising campaign for the Union paper, The Trentonian, and helping distribute The Trentonian to subscribers'. Although the strikers were receiving strike benefits from the Union, they were receiving no compensation from The Trentonian and were not included on the books and records of The Trentonian as employees. However, as found by the Board of Review, The Trentonian, after August 20, 1947, ‘went on a permanent basis, strike benefits ceased and the workers became regular employees of the newspaper’.
The strike benefits received by the appellants were paid in accordance with provisions of the Book of Laws of the International Typographical Union which, in Section 10, provides that in the event of a strike there shall be paid ‘an amount equal to 40 per cent of the minimum scale for each married man and 25 per cent for each single man’. Section 12 provides that no member of the local on strike shall be entitled to weekly benefits unless he reports daily to the proper officer of the Local while the strike continues and that any ‘member refusing work while out on strike shall be debarred from all benefits under this law, and for each day's work performed one-fourth of the members' regular strike benefits for that week shall be deducted’. contributions.
Thus, all of the appellants, while employed as members of the local, contributed to the strike fund; while on strike and receiving benefits, their contributions were suspended.
The Board of Review first found that there was a ‘stoppage of work’ from January 11, 1946, to August 1, 1946, but not thereafter, and that consequently the disqualification under R.S. 43:21-5(d), N.J.S.A. ended on August 1, 1946. See Lesser, Labor Disputes and Unemployment Compensation, 55 Yale L.J. 167 (1945). The Board expressed the view that even though the disqualification under R.S. 43:21-5(d), N.J.S.A., had ended, the claimants were still not eligible for benefits unless it appeared that they were, after August 1, 1946, (1) unemployed, see R.S. 43:21-4, N.J.S.A., and (2) available for work, see R.S....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Worcester Telegram Pub. Co. v. Director of Division of Employment Sec.
...were 'wages' as that term is used in the act. They were paid from funds to which they had contributed.'); Radice v. Department of Labor & Indus., 4 N.J.Super. 364, 367-368, 67 A.2d 313. See also Inter-Island Resorts, Ltd. v. Akahane, Hawaii, 377 P.2d 715, 723. Milne Chair Co. v. Hake, 190 T......
-
Aaron v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
...are indicative of union discipline rather than services rendered for which wages are payable. Radice v. Department of Labor and Industry, (1949) 4 N.J.Super. 364, 368, 67 A.2d 313, 315. Further, in Radice, supra, the court noted that the construction of a statute which dissociates strike be......
-
Family Finance Corp. v. Gough, A--341
...Water Service Corporation, supra; Perpente v. Moss, 293 N.Y. 325, 56 N.E.2d 726 (1944). See Radice v. New Jersey Department of Labor and Industry, 4 N.J.Super. 364, 368, 67 A.2d 313 (App.Div. 1949). The decision of the respondent is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Department of B......
-
Sweeney v. Board of Review, Division of Employment Sec., Dept. of Labor and Industry
...Hence the mere existence of a labor dispute is not enough to disqualify. Accordingly in Radice v. New Jersey Dept. of Labor and Industry, 4 N.J.Super. 364, 67 A.2d 313 (App.Div. 1949), the disqualification was deemed to end when the employer replaced the strikers and resumed normal operatio......