Legal Opinion
In re the Claim of Heitzenrater
New York Court of Appeals
Decided December 30, 1966PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFuld, J.
The question posed by this appeal, here by our leave, is whether mere participation by employees in a strike in violation of a “ no-strike ’ ’ clause in their collective bargaining-agreement with the employer constitutes such misconduct, within the meaning of subdivision 3 of section 593 of the Unemployment Insurance Law (Labor Law, art. 18), as to deprive them of unemployment insurance benefits.
*4The facts are not in dispute. The claimants, 24 in number, who were employed as production workers in the employer’s plastics plant at North Tonawanda were members of the International Association of…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Local 174, Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers v. Lucas Flour Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Mastro Plastics Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Sinclair Refining Co. v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1939
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- In re the Claim of De GregoNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- In Re CollingsworthCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973
- Willard v. Employment Security DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1974
- In re the Claims of GoodmanNew York Court of Appeals · 2000
- Cooper v. RutledgeWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1982
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.