In re the Claim of Naylor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Naylor

281 A.D. 721, 117 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3348

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 281 A.D. 721 (In re the Claim of Naylor) 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 Naylor, 281 A.D. 721, 117 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The contract between employer and union provided for vacation pay scale based on length of service. It did not give employees a right to a vacation as such, but to vacation pay. It provided that when operations of the company permitted closing of the plant “all vacations will be taken” then. The record shows that the union indicated to the employer by letter addressed “To Whom it May Concern” that it wanted a closing period for vacations, i.e., a “closing time” during a specified period. This cannot be construed other than as a consent by the union that the shop be closed in that period and a temporary voluntary withdrawal of its members from the labor market whether or not all individually received vacation pay benefits under the contract. Thus, the individual member, whose act is deemed that of the bargaining agency, is not for such a vacation period entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. (Matter of Rakowski [Corsi], 276 App. Div. 625.) Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, on the law, and claim for benefits disallowed. Foster, P. J., Brewster, Bergan and Halpern, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The contract between employer and union provided for vacation pay scale based on length of service. It did not give employees a right to a vacation as such, but to vacation pay. It provided that when operations of the company permitted closing of the plant “all vacations will be taken” then. The record shows that the union indicated to the employer by letter addressed “To Whom it May Concern” that it wanted a closing period for vacations, i.e., a “closing time” during a specified period. This cannot be construed other than as a consent by the union that the shop be closed in that period and a temporary voluntary withdrawal of its members from the labor market whether or not all individually received vacation pay benefits under the contract. Thus, the individual member, whose act is deemed that of the bargaining agency, is not for such a vacation period entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. (Matter of Rakowski [Corsi], 276 App. Div. 625.) Decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, on the law, and claim for benefits disallowed. Foster, P. J., Brewster, Bergan and Halpern, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D. 721, 117 N.Y.S.2d 775, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-naylor-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack