In re the Claim of Buckley

293 N.E.2d 248, 31 N.Y.2d 950, 341 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 904
New York Court of Appeals·Decided December 29, 1972·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Memorandum. There was substantial evidence supportive of the board’s findings of (1) the nonstriking employees’ fears of personal injury, and (2) of disciplinary action being taken against them by their union (National Labor Relations Bd. v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U. S. 175) should they cross the picket lines. That apprehension of bodily injury may constitute “ good cause ” (Labor Law, § 593, subd. 1, par. [a]) is scarcely debatable; and that claimants were not required to jeopardize their union standing is also clear (see Labor Law, § 593, subd. 2, par. [a]).

The order appealed from should be reversed and the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reinstated, with co^ts.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Jasen and Gibson concur in memorandum; Judge Breitel taking no part.

Order reversed, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re the Claim of Buckley, 293 N.E.2d 248, 31 N.Y.2d 950, 341 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 904 (N.Y. 1972).

293 N.E.2d 248 (In re the Claim of Buckley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Matter of Derfert (Commissioner of Labor)
2017 NY Slip Op 4016 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Stevinson v. Labor & Industrial Relations Commission
654 S.W.2d 373 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1983)
In re the Claim of Alexander
59 A.D.2d 960 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)