Celanese Corp. of America v. Bartlett
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the CourtMarkell, J.
These are two appeals from an order affirming two decisions of the Employment Security Board of Maryland and dismissing appeals therefrom. Both claimants, Mrs. Bartlett and Miss Arthur, had been employed by the Celanese Corporation, appellant. It is a matter of common knowledge that for some years Celanese’s operations and the number of its employees have fluctuated but have been greatly decreased. A collective bargaining agreement between it and the union, dated August 8, 1950, provides, inter alia, that “the employer will pay technological displacement allowance to employees displaced by…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Sturdevant Unemployment Compensation CaseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Federal Power Commission v. Metropolitan Edison Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Labor & Industry Department v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Tucker v. American Smelting & Refining Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1947
- Celanese Corp. of America v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1946
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Kay Construction Co. v. County Council for Montgomery CountyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1962
- Maryland Commission on Human Relations v. Downey Communications, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1996
- Maryland Commission on Human Relations v. Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1983
- Md. Comm'n on Human Rel. v. BG & E. CO.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1983
- Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc. v. Maryland Employment Security BoardCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1963
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.