Opinion
Argued November 12, 1985
May 12, 1986.
Unemployment compensation — Work stoppage — Lockout — Extension of old contract for reasonable time.
1. A work stoppage constitutes a lockout rendering employes affected thereby eligible for unemployment compensation benefits if an employer refuses to extend an expiring labor contract after employes offered to continue working for a reasonable time under the existing contract terms, but an offer to extend the contract for an additional three years is properly found not to be an offer of an extension for a reasonable time and such offer may properly be refused by the employer without converting the work stoppage into a lockout. [193-4]
Argued November 12, 1985, before President Judge CRUMLISH, JR., Judge COLINS, and Senior Judge BARBIERI, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 516 C.D. 1984, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in case of Terry A. Bedow, No. B-226019.
Application to the Office of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Benefits denied. Applicant appealed. Referee awarded benefits. Employer appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Referee reversed. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
William E. Barney, for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
Paul R. Lewis, Kleinbard, Bell Brecker, for intervenor, Cooper Energy Services.
An Unemployment Compensation Board of Review order reversed a referee's decision and denied Terry A. Bedow benefits under Section 402(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, concluding that the work stoppage at Cooper Energy Services (Cooper) resulted from a strike, not a lockout. Bedow appeals; we affirm.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(d).
Bedow is a token claimant representing similarly situated members of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Union No. 1748 (Union). Cooper and the Union held ten negotiation sessions for a new labor-management agreement before the old contract expired. Upon expiration, the Union offered to continue working under the old contract. Cooper refused this offer, which it construed as one to continue for another three years under the same terms, stating that it needed relief from that contract.
A work stoppage constitutes a lockout if an employer refuses to extend an expiring contract after the employees offered to continue working for a reasonable time under the pre-existing terms. Philco Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 430 Pa. 101, 242 A.2d 454 (1968). The Union contends that the Board erred by concluding that it did not offer to continue working under the old contract for a "reasonable time." We disagree.
The Union asserts that its offer was only to extend the old contract until the conclusion of negotiations on a new contract. However, both the referee and Board found that the offer was to continue "permanently" under the old contract and there is substantial evidence supporting the Board's finding that this meant for another three years. This is not a "reasonable time" because it denies Cooper the opportunity to negotiate for present relief from the old contract.
This situation is distinguishable from that in Leto Unemployment Compensation Case, 176 Pa. Super. 9, 12, 106 A.2d 652, 653 (1954), where claimants were not disqualified from benefits under Section 402(d), because the offer in Leto was to continue working under the existing agreement for "a year, a month or even 15 days, to allow additional time for negotiation." (Emphasis added.)
The Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence and it did not err by concluding that the Union's offer was not reasonable.
The decision is affirmed.
ORDER
The order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-226019 dated January 17, 1984, is affirmed.