In re the Claim of Conrad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Conrad

40 A.D.2d 733, 336 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3721

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 19, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 733 (In re the Claim of Conrad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 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 Conrad, 40 A.D.2d 733, 336 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Decision affirmed, with[734]*734out costs. No opinion. Staley, Jr., J. P., Simons, Kane and Reynolds, JJ., concur; Greenblott, J., dissents and votes to reverse in the following memorandum: The board found that claimant provoked his discharge by failing to follow his supervisor’s direction to work overtime. As a result, he was disqualified from benefits on the ground that he had voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Appellant contends that the collective bargaining agreement under which he was working provided that overtime was completely discretionary with the employee. Section 6 of the union contract states: “Employees shall not be required to work more than eight (8) hours in any one (1) day ”. In view of this language, appellant’s refusal to work was entirely justified. I therefore dissent and vote to reverse.

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

Decision affirmed, with[734]*734out costs. No opinion. Staley, Jr., J. P., Simons, Kane and Reynolds, JJ., concur; Greenblott, J., dissents and votes to reverse in the following memorandum: The board found that claimant provoked his discharge by failing to follow his supervisor’s direction to work overtime. As a result, he was disqualified from benefits on the ground that he had voluntarily left his employment without good cause. Appellant contends that the collective bargaining agreement under which he was working provided that overtime was completely discretionary with the employee. Section 6 of the union contract states: “Employees shall not be required to work more than eight (8) hours in any one (1) day ”. In view of this language, appellant’s refusal to work was entirely justified. I therefore dissent and vote to reverse.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 733, 336 N.Y.S.2d 617, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-conrad-nyappdiv-1972.