Legal Opinion
In re the Claim of Rodriguez
New York Court of Appeals
Decided July 2, 1973PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Chief Judge Fuld.
Several years ago, the court held that participation by employees in a .strike in violation of a “ no-strike ” clause contained in their collective bargaining agreement with their employer did not constitute misconduct within the meaning of subdivision 3 of section 593 of the Unemployment Insurance Law (Labor Law, art. 18) so as to deprive them of unemployment insurance benefits. (Matter of Heitzenrater [Hooker Chem. Corp.], 19 N Y 2d 1.) This appeal, here by our leave, *580calls upon us to decide whether the same result follows where employees engage in a strike or work stoppage…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Jewish Hospital v. DoeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
- Gwynne v. Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 3New York Court of Appeals · 1932
- East End Trust Co. v. OttenNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Society of New York Hospital v. HansonNew York Supreme Court · 1945
- Beth-El Hospital, Inc. v. DavisNew York Supreme Court · 1962
3Cited by5 opinions
- Ranone v. DEPT. OF EMPLOYMENT SEC., BD. OF REV.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1984
- Federal Aviation Administration v. Montana State Department of Labor & IndustryMontana Supreme Court · 1984
- In re the Claims of SadallahAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
- Federal Aviation Administration v. Montana State Department of Labor & IndustryMontana Supreme Court · 1984
- In re the Claim of PaladinoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983