In re the Claim of Buckley

New York Court of Appeals

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

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 29, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 293 N.E.2d 248 (In re the Claim of Buckley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 N.E.2d 248, 31 N.Y.2d 950, 341 N.Y.S.2d 98, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-buckley-ny-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack