Legal Opinion

Matter of Fiol (Calmar Ss Corp.-Corsi)

New York Court of Appeals

Decided April 24, 1953PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

The referee and the Appeal Board found justification for the claimant’s relinquishment of his job in the union’s sixty-day rule. But the mere fact of the existence of such a union rule did not warrant the conclusion that claimant was excused from continuing his employment. The referee and the Appeal Board had to go further and determine whether, under all the facts of the case, the claimant was justified in complying with the union regulation. Such an inquiry would involve a decision as to the reasonableness of the regulation in question — whether, in other words, the nature of the industry,…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. In re the Claim of FiolAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1954
  2. In re the Claim of WallsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1966
  3. In re the Claim of KotlowitzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
  4. Bohlinger v. International Workers Order, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API