Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta In re the Claim of Buckley 31 N.Y.2d 950

← Cases

In re the Claim of Buckley

31 N.Y.2d 950 Court N.Y. Decision date 1972-12-29 English

Contents

Majority

p. 950
In the Matter of the Claim of William Buckley, Appellant. Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Respondent; Martin P. Catherwood, as Industrial Commissioner, Appellant.
Argued December 4, 1972;
decided December 29, 1972.
p. 951
Richard Lipsitz and Lawrence A. Schulz for William Buckley, appellant.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Irving Jorrisch, Samuel A. Hirshowitz and Murray Sylvester of counsel), for Martin P. Catherwood, appellant.
Francis V. Cole, John F. Donovan and Reino R. Prehl for respondent.

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.

Cases cited