Section 1300

INDUSTRIAL CONTROVERSY

Index 1300

TABLE OF CONTENTS



Introduction 1300

Suspension period 1305
(See also Index 1325 and 1330)

A. Effective date of suspension

B. Termination of suspension

 

Industrial controversy, definition 1310

Establishment 1315

Cause of unemployment 1320

A. General

B. Absence and illness

C. Layoff prior to industrial controversy

D. Layoff at time of industrial controversy

E. Refusal to cross picket line

 

Termination of industrial controversy 1325

Resumption of industrial controversy 1330

 

1300. Introduction

 

This introduction is revised due to amendments to Section 592 effective September 25, 2008. The statute no longer provides for a suspension from benefits for workers unemployed due to a lockout. As amended, the statute states that if a claimant “lost his or her employment because of a strike, or other industrial controversy except for lockouts, including concerted activity not authorized or sanctioned by the recognized or certified bargaining agent of the claimant, and other concerted activity conducted in violation of any existing collective bargaining agreement, in the establishment in which he or she was employed..”, the accumulation of benefit rights is to be suspended for a period of seven consecutive weeks beginning with the day after such loss of employment. Such a suspension applies even if the claimant has intervening employment before filing a claim. Once a suspension is applied it is not terminated by any employment obtained after the filing of a claim. If the industrial controversy terminates before the expiration of the seven-week suspension period, benefit rights may be accumulated beginning with the day after the termination of such industrial controversy. No waiting period may be served during this suspension period.

The amended statute also includes new provisions regarding the hiring of replacement workers by an employer during a strike. The suspension from benefits “…shall not apply upon the hiring of a permanent replacement worker for the employee’s position by the employer”. In addition, the statute states: “A replacement worker shall be presumed to be permanent unless the employer certifies in writing that the employee will be able to return to his or her prior position upon conclusion of the strike, in the event the strike terminates prior to the conclusion of the employee's eligibility for benefit rights under this chapter.  In the event the employer does not permit such return after such certification, the employee shall be entitled to recover with interest any benefits lost as a result of the seven week suspension of benefits, and the department may impose a penalty upon the employer of up to seven hundred fifty dollars per employee per week of benefits lost.”   

The question of the claimant's participation in the strike or other industrial controversy is not an issue under the New York Law. The sole issues to be resolved before suspending the accumulation of benefit rights are:

  1. Whether a strike existed in the establishment in which the claimant was employed.
  2. Whether the loss of employment was due to the strike.

The following interpretations govern the issuing of strike suspension determinations to employees who have intermittent employment during a strike and where the employment of certain employees continues for a period following a strike:

  1. Where intermittent employment of essential employees such as maintenance workers occurs during a strike pursuant to agreement between the union and the employer, such as substituting employees in rotation one week at a time to maintain premises or essential services, the disqualification period "during a period of seven consecutive weeks" commences on the day following loss of employment, by workers thus affected, for the first time. The disqualification period is not interrupted by subsequent periods of work with the same employer during the strike.
  2. Where employment of essential employees, such as office workers, continues after the strike takes effect and, subsequently but prior to the end of the strike, they lose their employment, the disqualification period begins the day after their separation and continues "during a period of seven consecutive weeks" or until the strike terminates.

When processing claims regarding the issue of strike or industrial controversy, claims personnel should consult the appropriate Strike Bulletin to determine whether a suspension of benefits is proper. Determinations should be made in accordance with the principles reported in this section of the Interpretation Service Index.

 

Index 1300
Industrial Controversy

1305. Suspension Period

(See also Index 1325 and 1330)

  1. Effective date of suspension
    1. If a strike has been announced to become effective on a given day (e.g.. "as of 7 a.m."), such day is not included in the suspension period of Section 592.1 even if no work is performed on that day. (A.B. 78,758-61; A-750-1556)
    2. When a strike started at 12:01 on October 27, the suspension period began October 28. (A.B. 156,955)
    3. Claimants, some of whom were on sick leave from their employment on the date stoppage of work occurred because of strike, and others who became ill at varying times during the strike suspension period, were deemed to have lost their employment on the date on which the strike began and were properly suspended for seven consecutive weeks beginning with the day following the day the strike began. It is immaterial whether an employee of a strike-bound establishment is available or capable of employment during the suspension period. Therefore, no distinction was made between those on sick leave when the strike commenced and those who became sick thereafter. (Matter of Birkmeyer, 272 App. Div. 855; aff'g A.B. 13,748-46; A-750-772)
    4. Clerical employees who did not perform actual services after a strike of production workers had commenced, but were given first "advanced" annual paid vacation and then for several weeks their customary salary for "standing by", were held to have continued in employment during the period covered by such payments and to have lost their employment because of the strike as of the end of that period. The suspension of seven weeks began to run thereafter.(A.B. 21,135-49, A-750-917; similarly, A.B. 20,702-49)
    5. Maintenance employees who were terminated at the time the strike commenced without continuation of wage payment, were held to have lost their employment because of a strike as of the date the strike commenced. "Vacation pay" received by them covering a week falling in the middle of the strike period was of no consequence in relation to their benefit rights and to the running of the suspension period. (A.B. 21,135-49, A-750-917; similarly, Matter of Freeman, 9 AD 2d 1008)
    6. The suspension period for loss of employment due to an industrial controversy begins with day after the strike takes effect, even though that date falls into the middle of a period of a plant shutdown for vacation purposes for which the striking employees had received vacation pay. (Ref. 70,137-56R; A-750-1445)
    7. The strike suspension period for a skip-week worker begins to run on the day after the strike takes effect, although that date occurs during his "off week". (A.B. 29,810-51; A-750-1132)
    8. Suspension from benefits commenced on October 14, the day after a strike commenced, even though on that day claimant was serving a penalty layoff for the period October 13 to 16 inclusive, of which he was notified on October 11, the last day on which he worked, and he was requested by the employer to return to work on October 18, which he did not do because of the strike. (A.B. 18,913-49; A-750-873)
  2. Termination of suspension
    1. If loss of employment is due to strike, suspension period applies irrespective of claimant's application to employer for reinstatement. (A.B. 157-38)
    2. Claimant unemployed because of strike was not relieved of disqualification because he left picket line and abandoned idea of ever returning to former employer. (A.B. 157-38)
    3. Where loss of employment was due to strike, subsequent resignation from the job was immaterial. (A.B. 1829-39; A-750-42)
    4. If loss of employment is due to strike, suspension period applies irrespective of claimant's intention to leave industry. (A.B. 198-38)
    5. A strike suspension is not terminated by discharge of the employee by the employer during the industrial controversy. (A.B. 44,181-54; A-750-1309)
    6. Suspension of benefits because of industrial controversy is not terminated by claimant's return to work for the employer while the controversy continues. (A.B. 249,303; A-750-1839)
    7. An industrial controversy suspension is not ended by the termination of an employee who reaches mandatory retirement age during the industrial controversy. (A.B. 168,575)

1310. Industrial controversy, definition

  1. An accepted definition of a labor dispute is found in Section 807, subdivision 10 (c) of the Labor Law (formerly, Sec. 876-a. Civil Practice Act):


The term "labor dispute" includes any controversy concerning terms and conditions of employment or concerning the association and representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, or concerning employment relations, or any other controversy arising out of the respective interests of employer and employee, regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the relation of employer and employee. (Cited with approval. A.B. 236-38)

  1. "Industrial controversy" within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Law is not limited by definitions set forth in other laws, such as the definition of "labor disputes" in Section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act (now Sec. 807.10 (c), Labor Law). (Matter of Crealey, 280 App. Div. 844; A-750-1107)
  2. There is an industrial controversy within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Law in an employers establishment if the employer refuses the demand of a union (i.e., to hire one of its members), although the union does not represent employees in his shop and none of the employer's present workers is a member of the union and even if such action by the union is "illegal" and not a "labor dispute" within the meaning of Section 876-A of the Civil Practice Act (now Sec. 807.10 (c), Labor Law). (Matter of Gilmartin, 10 N.Y. 2d 16; A-750-1551)
  3. Where employees, all members of a union local, left their employment in concert after a strike vote because the employer failed to comply with a War Labor Board directive, it was held the loss of employment was due to an industrial controversy resulting in a strike in the establishment. Referee's decision that the War Labor Board directive terminated an industrial controversy was reversed as applying too narrow a meaning to the terms, whereas the Legislature obviously intended to give it a broad concept with the effect of requiring the State to stand aside for a stated period of time in case of a breach in the employer-employee relationship. (A.B. 12,521-45; A-750-721)
  4. Where the employer reduced offered wages to piece work rates lower than those provided in the union agreement, leaving employment in concert in order to compel the employer to restore the former rates constituted loss of employment due to an industrial controversy in the establishment. (A.B. 43,494-54; A-750-1281; similarly, A.B. 43,894)
  5. Due to 2008 amendments to the law, A 750-916 and its rule are obsolete.
  6. Due to 2008 amendments to the law, A 750-757 and its rule are obsolete.
  7. Due to 2008 amendments to the law, the rule derived from A.B. 822-39 is obsolete.
  8. Although there is generally a concerted action by a group, overt action by a single person may constitute a dispute. (A.B. 577-39)
  9. Jurisdictional dispute between two groups of employees coupled with dispute between union and employer respecting obligations of either under existing union agreement, whether or not other issues were involved, was sufficient to constitute industrial controversy. (A.B. 237-38)
  10. A dispute implies the insistence by one party on acceptance or abrogation of some condition of employment and resistance by the other party. (A.B. 274-38)
  11. Due to 2008 amendments to the law, A 750-868 and its rule are obsolete.
  12. Where the union contract (in the garment industry) provides that no work need be performed until the piecework rate bas been fixed and a work stoppage occurs for this reason, the provisions of Section 592 of the Law, dealing with industrial controversy, do not apply. (A.B. 45,525-54; A-750-1321)
  13. A work stoppage upon the advice of claimants' union because of the employer's failure to fulfill employment contract obligations (health and welfare fund payments, holiday pay, wages, etc.) is not an industrial controversy where there is no dispute concerning the terms or conditions of employment but simply an inability on the part of the employer to pay because of lack of funds. (A.B. 98,903, A.B. 102,051A; A-750-1598).
  14. Quitting in concert by five female employees on the alleged ground that male employees were being paid higher wages for similar work was not a strike, lockout or industrial controversy within the meaning of the statute when picketing, or other attempts to induce the employer to change his position or an attempt to resume the employment relationship were not availed of. (A.B. 12,544-45; A-750-700(A))
  15. Activities of employees in organizing and assisting in the formation of a union, which resulted in their discharge, did not constitute an industrial controversy. (A.B. 414-38)
  16. When an employer ceased operations, immediately began winding up its affairs, and went out of business for economic reasons, after its employees and their union refused to waive contractual pay increases, the loss of employment was not due to an industrial controversy, and no suspension applied. (A.B. 203,739; A-750-1791)

1315. Establishment

  1. Where claimant, an inspector employed by W but stationed in C's plant in which a strike occurred, lost his employment when the plant shut down, it was held that loss of employment was not as a result of an industrial controversy in the establishment in which he was employed within the meaning of the Law. (A.B. 12,867-46; A-750-744)
  2. Workers who lost their employment as a result of a strike in another plant of the employer situated in a distant locality because production schedules of the plants involved were synchronized, were held not to have lost their employment "because of a strike...in the establishment" in which they were employed. The Court held that the strike did not occur in the same "establishment". (Matter of Machcinski, 277 App. Div. 634; A-750-915 [Rev.])
  3. Due to 2008 amendments to the law, A 750-916 and its rule are obsolete.
  4. Assemblers who lost their employment in Utica because of lack of radio chassis as a result of a strike in another plant of the employer situated in Syracuse were held not to have lost their employment "because of a strike...in the establishment" in which they were employed. (A.B. 25,852-50; A-750-1018)
  5. The Construction Division of a steel manufacturing plant was held not to be a separate "establishment" when all employees were employed in the same premises at the time when a strike of the production workers in the steel manufacturing plant occurred. (Matter of Lasher, et al, 279 App. Div. 505; A.B. 22,171-50; A-750-1104)
  6. A strike called by the union against a jobber in the garment industry is extended to the contractor who works exclusively for the jobber when the workers of the contractor, members of the same union, walk off their jobs and fail to return until the jobber complies with the union's demand, and consequently, such workers must be considered as having lost their employment as the result of an industrial controversy in the establishment in which they were employed. (A.B. 33,979-52; A-750-1177)
  7. Where in a chain store enterprise there is a strike of workers at the employer's warehouse which is physically separated from the retail stores, the strike suspension provisions do not apply to a retail store employee although his unemployment is caused by that strike, since he was not employed in the struck "establishment." (A.B. 44,529-54; A-750-1318)
  8. An industrial controversy in the employer's headquarters in Alabama, although it affects the employer's entire system, does not constitute an industrial controversy in the New York terminal where the New York employees neither take part in, nor are concerned with the industrial controversy, since the New York terminal is a separate "establishment," such conclusion being reached from the standpoint of employment rather than management. (A.B. 48,001-54;A-750-1353)
  9. A strike at one or more of the terminals operated by a trucking company is not extended to another of the employer's terminals where the workers, locally employed, are laid off despite no demands, strike declaration, or picketing since the terminal can be identified as a separate establishment from the standpoint of employment. (A.B. 64,684-58; A-750-1488)
  10. Where an employer's enterprise is conducted in more than one location, the term "establishment," for the purposes of section 592.1 is to be defined in geographic terms, rather than in terms of corporate organization or exercise of management powers and functions. Thus, if there is a strike at the airport terminal building of an airline, the hangars at the airport (2 1/2 miles distant) and the city offices (10 miles distant) are "separate " establishments; similarly, a steel fabrication plant, operated by a company engaged in erecting and installing steel structures at construction sites not contiguous to the plant, is a "separate" establishment so that a strike of the construction workers does not affect the workers employed at the fabrication plant. (Matter of Ferrara.10 N.Y. 2d 1; Matter of Curatalo, 10 N.Y. 2d 10; A-750-1494)
  11. Members of the crew of a vessel and longshoremen engaged in the loading or unloading of the vessel are employed in the same "establishment" (Section 592.1 U.I. Law) if both are employees of the same employer and if the operating office for the vessel is maintained at a terminal located on piers where the longshoremen are so engaged. (A.B. 115,384; A-750-1622; similarly, Matter of Lessner, 36 AD 2d 1.)
  12. An industrial controversy at one of the employer's establishments is not extended to another of his establishments solely because it is picketed by the striking union. (A.B. 118,398; A-750-1629[ rev. ])
  13. If two financially interrelated employers with interlocking management are engaged in integrated operations on the same premises, these premises constitute the same "establishment" for the employees of both employers even though only one is involved in an industrial controversy, with the result that employees of the other employer are also subject to a suspension as provided in Section 592 if they lose their employment because of the industrial controversy. (Matter of Cohn, 20 A.D. 2d 298; A.B. 114,827; A-750-1649)
  14. If "truck drivers, though reporting daily at a central garage to obtain trucks and work assignments, perform a substantial portion of their work at the sites of construction jobs, these job sites (and not the central garage) are the "establishment" for the purpose of industrial controversy determinations. (A.B. 141,785 and 141,786; A-750-1690; similarly, Matter of Bonaventura, 32 A.D. 2d 869)
  15. Individual buildings and structures of an industrial complex, separated by distances of 60 to 400 feet and located in an area broken up by railroad tracks and public thoroughfares, were held to be separate establishments even though they are interconnected by overhead bridges and their functions are interdependent. (Matter of Sierant, 24 N.Y. 2d 675; A-750-1673 [rev.],)
  16. Outside sales people who reported orders by telephone, occasionally visited their employer's premises, and were under the direction of sales managers based there, were held to be employed in "the same "establishment" as the employer's clerks, warehousemen and drivers who worked in or operated from those premises. (Matter of DiLella, 48 A.D. 2d 491; A-750-1797)

1320. Cause of unemployment

  1. General
    1. Claimant who has two jobs, one a full-time split shift and the other a daily part-time job, who loses his full-time job because of an industrial controversy and one month later after being laid off from his part-time job files a claim, is not disqualified for loss of employment because of an industrial controversy since claimant was employed daily and ineligible until he filed for benefits after being laid off from his last job. (A.B. 73,708-60; A-750-1526)
    2. A claimant who, after being interviewed on Friday, is approved and directed to report for work on Monday and upon so reporting finds the establishment closed because of an industrial controversy, is not subject to a suspension for loss of employment due to an industrial controversy since the relationship never ripened into that of employer-employee and claimant, therefore, had no employment to lose. (A.B. 30,90-52; A-750-1097)
    3. Failure to report for work on April 7, 1947 because a strike was in progress constituted loss of employment because of an industrial controversy even though notice was given on April 4 that services would be terminated on April 11 because of lack of work. (Matter of Echevarria, 273 App. Div. 1046; A-750-836)
  2. Absence and illness
    1. Claimants, some of whom were on sick leave from their employment on the date stoppage of work occurred because of strike, and others who became ill at varying times during the strike suspension period, were deemed to have lost their employment on the date on which the strike began and were properly suspended for seven consecutive weeks beginning with the day following the day the strike began. It is immaterial whether an employee of a strike-bound establishment is available or capable of employment during the suspension period. Therefore, no distinction was made between those on sick leave when the strike commenced and those who became sick thereafter. (Matter of Birkmever, 272 App. Div. 855; aff'g. A.B. 13,748-46; A-750-772).
  3. Layoff prior to industrial controversy
    1. When continuing contract for intermittent employment was still in effect, loss of employment could be attributable to a strike whether or not claimant was actually at work when strike commenced in establishment. (Matter of Sadowski, 257 App. Div. 529; A-750-43)
    2. A claimant on a temporary lay-off who is unable to return to work on a prearranged recall date because of a strike against the employer is subject to the industrial controversy suspension. (A.B. 60,848)
    3. The strike suspension period for a skip-week worker begins to run on the day after the strike takes effect, although that date occurs during his off-week. (A.B. 29,810-51)
    4. Longshoremen who obtained work by shaping up at a hiring hall were employed on a daily basis only. Since they had not been "pre-ordered" to continue to work on the job site for the day when a strike by their union commenced, they were not employed on that day, their unemployment was not caused by the strike, and thus they were not subject to suspension of benefit rights for industrial controversy. (Matter of Crerand, 46 A.D. 2d 822; A-750-1785)
    5. A claimant on seasonal layoff with uncertain recall date (such date depending on weather conditions) is not subject to industrial controversy suspension when he refuses to return to work because of a strike in the establishment. (Matter of Hunqer, 40 A.D. 2d 728; A-750-1755)
    6. Indefinite lay-off (or permanent termination of employment) preceding strike, because of employer's election to give work to a non-union contractor instead of his employees who were union members, did not subject claimant to disqualification period. (A.B.730-39)
    7. Where a group of members of an employers' association ceased operations immediately following the termination of the usual two-week vacation period because a strike was called at the commencement of the vacation period against one of the employer members as a result of disagreement concerning a new employer-union contract affecting all employer members, it was held that the employees of all such employers lost their employment because of an industrial controversy since the vacation lay-off did not interrupt the employer-employee relationship and the subsequent unemployment was due to an industrial controversy. (A.B. 24,349-50; A-750-1032)
    8. Employees who are discharged by the employer because of a decision to abolish their positions, do not lose their employment because of an industrial controversy although they endeavored to retain their jobs by negotiation, and continued negotiations and commenced picketing after the discharge. (A.B. 45,331-54; A-750-1311)
    9. Discharge because of refusal to sever union relations, even though followed by subsequent calling of a strike did not subject claimant to disqualification. (Ref. M 31-16-38R)
    10. The suspension from benefits for loss of employment because of a strike, lockout or other industrial controversy does not apply to a claimant who is laid off because of a decline in the employer's business activities due to the anticipation of a possible strike when the layoff occurs while (1) collective bargaining negotiations are conducted peacefully and in good faith and no impasse has been reached, (2) a strike has not as yet been authorized and (3) available work was continued without significant interruptions and without any act or incident typical of a strike or lockout. (Matter of Keane, 6 N.Y. 2d 910; aff'g 2 AD 2d 148; A-750-1428)
    11. If an employer decides to cease operations during negotiations for a new union contract because the union threatens a strike and refuses to give assurance of continued processing of material which is subject to spoilage, workers who are laid off for this reason are subject to the suspension provisions since the economic pressure so applied means that there is an industrial controversy within the meaning of the law. (A.B 82,557 et. al.; A-750-1560)
    12. When an employer laid off some employees in anticipation of an impending strike, such employees were suspended effective the day following their loss of employment and not at the time the majority of employees lost employment a few weeks later when the strike actually occurred. (A.B. 41,371)
    13. Where an employee, who obtains employment by shaping-up, has established a pattern of regular, substantial and frequent employment with an employer by obtaining work virtually every shift for which he shaped-up, a regular course of employment exists. Thus, such an employee, not hired because of the existence of an industrial controversy, is subject to a suspension for loss of employment because of the controversy. (A.B. 291,699; A.B. 292,284; A.B. 292,637; A-750-1889)
  4. Layoff at time of industrial controversy
    1. If claimant was laid off for lack of work due to a strike in the establishment, regardless of his participation in the strike or his interest or involvement in the issues in dispute, his loss of employment was due to a strike. (A.B. 391-38)
    2. Where operations were suspended because of a strike by one grade or group of workers, the unemployment of all the other employees in the plant was deemed to be due to lack of work because of the controversy. (A.B. 868-39; similarly A.B. 18,361-48)
    3. Claimant not involved or participating in a strike of other employees in the establishment, laid off by employer to avoid any hostilities which might have resulted by crossing picket line, was held unable to work because of strike and therefore subject to statutory strike suspension. (A.B. 12,850-46; A-750-745)
    4. Loss of employment because of a strike occurred when claimant was laid off with the rest of the office staff because of a strike by the truck drivers in the establishment even though the employer stated that there was some work for the claimant but he was laid off to avoid discrimination. (A.B. 14,881-47; A-750-805)
    5. Even though the employer has work available for them, the suspension provisions apply to non-striking workers (i.e.. maintenance men, office staff) who are laid off because continuation of their operations is not feasible for reasons created by a strike, such as lack of heat as the result of non-delivery of fuel oil due to picketing. (A.B. 82,557 et. al.; A-750-1560)
    6. An office worker loses employment because of an industrial controversy, and is subject to a suspension from benefits, if laid off when his employer, relieved of supervisory responsibilities as the result of a strike of production workers in the establishment, decides to perform his duties. (A.B. 160,176; A-750-1731)
    7. Lay-off because of slack season, caused by general economic conditions, did not subject claimant to disqualification period, although it occurred simultaneously with strike of another group of workers in the plant. (A.B. 577-39)
    8. If there is an industry-wide industrial controversy, the provisions of Section 592.1 apply to a claimant only if his unemployment is directly attributable to the industrial controversy in his place of employment. Thus, in the case of a general strike of truck drivers in the construction industry, the construction workers of an employer are not suspended from benefits if their loss of employment is attributable to the non-delivery of cement caused by the strike of truck drivers against another employer supplying the cement, rather than to the participation in the strike by the truck drivers employed by employer of the construction workers. (Matter of Wentworth; 10 N.Y. 2d 13; A-750-1553)
    9. Claimants who lost employment on the day on which the employer discontinued business were not subject to disqualification period even though an industrial controversy immediately preceded the employer's action. (A.B. 2413-40; A-750-189)
    10. Discharge of temporary worker after completion of a specific job for which he was taken on during strike, did not subject him to disqualification period. (A.B. 207-38)
  5. Refusal to cross picket line
    1. Non-striking members of one union becoming unemployed because of refusal to cross picket lines of striking members of another union in same establishment were subject to disqualification period. (A.B. 4341-40; A-750-272)
    2. Refusal by claimant to cross a picket line maintained at his job site by striking employees of another employer operating at the same location, does not subject him to suspension for industrial controversy when no industrial controversy exists "in the establishment" where he is employed. Such refusal is a voluntary leaving with good cause, but only when there is fear for personal safety, or claimant's union standing would be jeopardized. (Matter of Bucklev. 31 N.Y. 2d 950 ; A-750-1749 revised)
    3. An industrial controversy exists if a union pickets on a construction project where work is done by subcontractors for the purpose of exerting pressure on the subcontractors' principal (a U.S. Air Base) to accede to demands made on that principal, such as demands relating to employment of certain classes of workers in connection with the project. Thus a suspension from benefits applies to employees of the subcontractors who lose employment because of work stoppage resulting from the picketing although no dispute exists between the subcontractors and their employees. (Matter of Sprague, 4 AD 2d 911; A-750-1465)

1325. Termination of industrial controversy

  1. Industrial controversy suspension, although it originated with a nationwide labor dispute affecting the several establishments of an integrated industrial enterprise, terminates with respect to a given establishment within such enterprise when there is an agreement settling all issues of the dispute in relation to such establishments and regardless of the interdependency of the establishments resulting in continued unemployment due to the lack of essential parts or other reasons connected with the controversy. (Matter of George, 14 N.Y. 2d 234; A-750-1611)
  2. An industrial controversy suspension terminates when the dispute between labor and management is settled, and therefore no longer applies to claimant who remains unemployed thereafter even though such continued unemployment is due to circumstances causally connected with the dispute, such as a need for gradual resumption of operations. (Matter of Acquisto, 18 N.Y. 2d 577; aff'g. 25 A.D. 2d 326; A-750-1651)
  3. Industrial controversy terminated when employer entered into agreement with the union which was designated as sole collective bargaining agency as the result of a secret election before the National Labor Relations Board pursuant to written agreement executed by employer and disputing unions, even though minor number of dissenting employees picketed establishment thereafter. (A.B. 3103-40; A-750-207)
  4. Cessation of strike by union agreement and resumption of operation by some employers operating under contractual provisions with a union did not cancel disqualification of a claimant unemployed because of strike when his employer did not agree and would not sign a new contract, and work stoppage and all elements of the controversy continued notwithstanding withdrawal of pickets from employer's establishment. (A.B. 12,851-46; A-750-734)
  5. Where there was repudiation of settlement agreement with resumption of strike activities, strike or other industrial controversy was not deemed to have terminated. (A.B. 1128-39)
  6. Claimants who lost employment on the day on which the employer discontinued business were not subject to disqualification period even though an industrial controversy immediately preceded the employer's action. (A.B. 2413-40; A-750-189)
  7. A strike suspension ends after the date on which the employer discontinues business. The strike ceases to exist as of that date. (A.B. 20,677-49; A-750-909)
  8. The suspension for industrial controversy ends as of the date an employer was compelled by law or government regulations to suspend business operations, even on a temporary basis. (A.B. 371,792; A-750-1979)

1330. Resumption of industrial controversy

  1. Where employees out on strike since August 20, 1945, because of failure of employer to comply with War Labor directives, returned to work in September, 1945, at the suggestion of the War Labor Board, pending enforcement of a compliance with such directives, and again walked out on February 3, 1946 after negotiations between the union and employer had broken down, it was held that loss of employment in both instances was attributable to a single industrial controversy, since identical issues were involved in both instances. The suspension period cannot exceed seven weeks of unemployment in the aggregate where the loss of employment is attributable to a single industrial controversy. (A.B. 13,368-46; A-750-793)
  2. Where employees out on strike return to work pending a jurisdictional election and again walk out after the employer refused to recognize their union, loss of employment in both instances is due to a single industrial controversy and the seven week period of suspension is applied on a cumulative basis, with the days on which claimants worked excluded in calculating the termination of the seven weeks period. (A.B. 45,781-54; A-750-1312)

1335. Replacement Workers

  1. If an employer does not certify in writing that the replacement workers hired during an industrial controversy are temporary, the plain language of the statute provides that the replacement workers are presumed to be permanent, and there is no suspension of benefit rights for the striking workers under Labor Law Section 592(1)(b).