MacPhail, John A.

English

Penn State Dickinson Law: IDEAS

Volume 54 Issue 2 Dickinson Law Review - Volume 54, 1949-1950 1-1-1950 Meaning of the Term Labor Dispute in the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law John A. MacPhail Follow this and additional works at: https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlra Recommended Citation John A. MacPhail, Meaning of the Term Labor Dispute in the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law, 54 DICK. L. REV. 203 (1950). Available at: https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlra/vol54/iss2/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Dickinson Law IDEAS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dickinson Law Review by an authorized editor of Dickinson Law IDEAS. For more information, please contact lja10@psu.edu. NOTESMEANING OF THE TERM LABOR DISPUTE IN THEPENNSYLVANIA UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION LAWWhat is a "labor dispute" within the meaning of the Pennsylvania Un-employment Compensation Law?' The Pennsylvania Superior Court has wrestledwith this term in a number of compensation cases, first when it spelled a tempor-ary disqualification (Section 401) for benefits, and later when it became groundsfor indeterminate or so-called "permanent" disqualification (Section 402). 2Tworecent cases illustrate the complexity of the problem involved.Under the terms of the original act as amended in 19423 and 1945,' if claim-ant's unemployment was due to a voluntary suspension of work because of anindustrial dispute he could obtain benefits but had to undergo a waiting period.Therefore, it might be to claimant's advantage to show that his unemploymentwas due to an industrial dispute, since otherwise he risked being classified as avoluntary quit (Section 402 b), and denied benefits altogether.An outstanding case under this phase of the law was Duquesne Brewing Co.of Pittsburgh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.6 (Hereinafterreferred to as the Loerlein case.) The claimant (Loerlein) was a member of anindependent union which the CIO and AFL raided. The majority of the inde-pendent local unions went CIO but claimant's local affiliated with the AFL. Claim-ant's union then went on strike to compel the employer to recognize it as bargain-ing agent.Claimant argued that this was an industrial dispute and that he, therefore,could qualify for benefits at the expiration of the statutory period. He relied onthe Superior Court's decision in the Miller case6 where the court said an industrialdispute "does not have to be between employers and employees." It was there heldthat the dispute could be between the employees and their union or bargainingagent "providing it involves the employer and affects terms or conditions of em-ployment." Loerlein claimed this was such a dispute. The Unemployment Com-pensation Board of Review agreed with claimant and subjected his claim to thetemporary (four weeks) disqualification. On appeal by the employer, contendingthat claimant should be disqualified during the entire period of his unemployment,the Superior Court reversed the board.The court said this was a "jurisdictional contest for labor control." Appar-ently the court was qualifying its broad statement in the Miller case. But the courtI Act of December 5, 1936, P. L. 2897, 43 P. S. 802.2 The original Act used the term "industrial dispute" and the amended provision em-ployed the term "labor dispute," but the Superior Court has used these terms interchangebaly. Susque.hanna Collieries Co. v. U. C. Board of Review, 137 Pa. Super. 110, 112, 115; Barns v. U.C. Board of Review, 152 Pa. Super. 429, 432.B Act of April 23, 1942, P. L. 60, 43 P. S. 802.4 Act of May 29, 1945, P. L. 1145, 43 P. S. 802.5 162 Pa. Super. 216, 56 A.2d 269 (1948).6 152 Pa. Super. 315, 31 A.2d 740 (1943).DICKINSON LAVW REVIEWgoes on to say this case dicd not present a "single aspect" of an industrial dispute.This addition would seem to weaken considerably the court's previous decision.One may agree that this was a jurisdictional dispute but to say that the factualsituation presented not a single aspect of an industrial dispute is saying that ajurisdictional dispute and an industrial lispute are in no way similar or related.That such a clear distinction exists is to be doubted. However, the decision wasaffirmed by the Supreme Court.7In 19478 the legislature changed Section 402 in two resplects. (1) The term"labor dispute" was substituted for "industrial dispute."' (2) By the more import-ant revision, a claimant was made ineligible for benefits as long as his unemploy-m'ent was due to a stoppage of work because of a labor dispute, unless he fellunder three categories of exemptions.1"Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Re-view 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Curcio case) was the first case to reachthe court under the new law. Curcio, the claimant, worked for appellant where anopen shop was maintained. The CIO and AFL began to organize the employeesand each union requested appellant to grant bargaining rights to it. When thecompany refused to recognize the CIO, the members of this union went on strike.Curcio, however, was a member of the AFL which had not taken any strike action.He tried to continue to work but was restrained by a massved picket line whichthreatened to use force against those attempting to enter the plant.When Curcio presented his claim for benefits, the Unemployment Compen-sation Board of Review, looking to the court's decision in the Loerlein case, con-cluded that the present facts did not constitute a labor dispute and awarded himbenefits since his unemployment was involuntary.But again the board was reversed. The Superior Court said that these factsclearly showed there was a labor dispute and, therefore, claimant was disqualifiedbecause he was a member of the same occupational class of workers (productionworkers) to which the striking CIO employees belonged. The fact that theemployer refused to recognize the CIO (except on NLRB certification) was heldto make this situation a labor dispute. The court attempted to distinguish thiscase from the Loerlein case by saying that here the interests of both employerand employee were at stake. Were they any less so in the Loerlein case? The courtgoes on to say they never intended to txtend the Loerlein decision beyond facts7 359 Pa. 535, 59 A.2d 913 (1948).8 Act of June 30, 1947 P. L. 1186, 43 P. S. 802.9 Note 2, supra.10 Claimant had to prove (1) he was not participating in or particularly interested in thedispute; (2) he was not a member of an organization participating in or directly interesetd in thedispute; and (3) he was not of the same grade or class of workers of which immediately beforecommencement of the stoppage there were members employed at the premises at which stoppageoccurs, any of whom are participating in or interested in the dispute.11 68 A.2d 393 (1949).NOTESsimilar or identical to those found there. On close analysis one finds it difficultto observe any material distinction in the facts. This case seems to present everybit as much of a jurisdictional dispute as did the Loerlein case. In both cases thegist of the controversy was that rival unions were competing for bargaining rights.Furthermore, on the basis of ordinary justice, Curcio would seem to be en-titled to benefits since he wanted to work and was prevented from doing sothrough no fault on his part or on the part of his union.This decision seems to leave wide open the question, of what facts constitutea labor dispute. The Miller and Loerlein cases were difficult enough to harmonizeon their facts but one could at least conclude from reading the latter case that ajurisdictional "labor dispute" was not, in the opinion of the Superior Court, a"labor dispute" in the field of unemployment compensation. The line of distinc-tion between the Loerlein and Curcio cases, however, is even more tenuous re-garding the application of the term "labor dispute" in claims for benefits. Al-though the court has attempted to harmonize its decisions, there seems to be rea-son for seriously questioning whether the Loerlein case has not, in effect, beenoverruled. If this is the result, it can probably be ascribed to judicial disapprovalof benefit payments in labor dispute cases and the fact that a broad interpretationof the amended labor dispute clause (with its disqualification for the durationof the stoppage) will tend to reduce eligibility for benefits in claims arisingout of labor and industrial controversies. As indicative that the court has shiftedto a broader application of the term, and to add to the uncertainty of the law onthe subject, is the following statement on page 391 of the Curcio opinion:"The inference is reasonable therefore that the legislature in thepresent Act did not intend the screening of facts through the meshof any fixed definition of a labor dispute to determine by a process assimple as that whether a claimant is entitled to unemployment compen-sation."One questions the propriety of allowing a law so vital to so many to be so uncer-tain. It is suggested that legislative clarification of the meaning of the term"labor dispute" in this statute would be to the best interests of employees and em-ployers as well as government agencies and officials administering the law.JOHN A. MACPHAIL

Meaning of the Term Labor Dispute in the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law

bepress Legal Repository

https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1888&context=dlra

Meaning of the Term Labor Dispute in the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Penn State Dickinson Law: IDEAS

bepress Legal Repository