Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Aitken v. Board of Review of Unemployment Compensation Commission

Decided: January 12, 1948.

ANDREW AITKEN ET AL., PROSECUTORS,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION COMMISSION OF NEW JERSEY AND HINDE & DAUCH PAPER CO., RESPONDENTS



On certiorari.

For the prosecutors, Harry Green.

For the Board of Review of Unemployment Compensation Commission, Clarence F. McGovern.

For Hinde & Dauch Paper Co., Starr, Summerill & Lloyd.

Before Justices Bodine, Heher and Wachenfeld.

Bodine

The opinion of the court was delivered by

BODINE, J. A writ of certiorari in this case was allowed to review the decision of the Board of Review of the Unemployment Compensation Commission dated January 20th, 1947, denying unemployment benefits to the prosecutors, members of a local union. They did not work because a picket line had been established by another union from another state and this they would not cross.

The conclusion of the Board of Review was that the voluntary refusal of the claimants to cross the picket line amounted to participation in a labor dispute at the place of employment, and for that reason they were disqualified. R.S. 43:21-5.

The Hinde & Dauch Paper Company have a manufacturing plant at Gloucester City, N.J., and also one at Sandusky, Ohio. In the first instance, there was no work stoppage at the

Gloucester City plant. There was a strike at the Sandusky, Ohio, plant. The workers at the Gloucester City plant were satisfied with their working conditions and had no grievance. The local union at the Gloucester plant at first protested against and refused to support in any financial way the Sandusky strike, but the Sandusky strikers came into New Jersey and established a picket line.

It is argued that since there was no labor dispute at the New Jersey plant the workers were entitled to their unemployment benefits.

The statute (R.S. 43:21-5), so far as pertinent, is as follows: "An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: * * * (d) For any week with respect to which it is found that his total 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.