You are here: / / ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS REHIRED AFTER THE STRIKE, THE EMPLOYER HAD NOT ASSURED...
, ,

ALTHOUGH CLAIMANT WAS REHIRED AFTER THE STRIKE, THE EMPLOYER HAD NOT ASSURED CLAIMANT OF THE RIGHT TO RETURN TO WORK DURING THE STRIKE, THEREFORE THE EMPLOYER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE SEVEN-WEEK SUSPENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS DURING A STRIKE PERMITTED BY LABOR LAW 592 (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits and were not subject to the seven-week suspension of benefits during a strike (Labor Law 592). The suspension of benefits is not applicable where, as here, the employer indicates it is hiring permanent replacements for the strikers:

Although it is unclear which of claimants’ positions were filled by the permanent replacement workers, the record unequivocally demonstrates that none of the claimants were notified in a certified writing that they would be able to return to their prior positions upon the conclusion of the strike. Moreover, although claimants ultimately were allowed to return to their prior positions following ratification of the parties’ … Memorandum of Agreement ending the strike, that agreement is of no consequence because the employer failed to provide any written certification during either the seven-week suspension period or at any time prior to the conclusion of the strike assuring claimants that they would retain the right to return to their prior positions upon conclusion of the strike … . Matter of D’Altorio (Clare Rose, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2019 NY Slip Op 04249, Third Dept 5-30-19

 

You might also like
Growling and Baring Teeth Insufficient to Raise Question of Fact About a Dog’s Vicious Propensities
DEFENDANT’S OMISSIONS, INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AND LIES AFTER A ROUTINE TRAFFIC STOP JUSTIFIED THE CANINE SNIFF.
FACT THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE PARTICULAR MACY’S STORE AT WHICH THE SKIRT WHICH CAUGHT FIRE WAS PURCHASED DID NOT WARRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF MACY’S, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFF’S PROOF IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).
Court Erred In Failing to Hold a Restitution Hearing—No Support In Record for Amount Imposed
AS LONG AS BOTH THE CERTIFIED AND FIRST-CLASS-MAIL LETTERS NOTIFYING A MORTGAGEE OF A TAX FORECLOSURE SALE ARE NOT RETURNED, THE MORTGAGEE IS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN PROPERLY SERVED PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW 1125 (THIRD DEPT).
THE DE BOUR STREET STOP REQUIREMENTS, NOT THE TRAFFIC STOP REQUIREMENTS, APPLY TO THE APPROACH OF A PERSON IN A STATIONARY CAR WITH THE ENGINE RUNNING (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS PROOF DEFENDANT WAS AWARE THE CO-DEFENDANT POSSESSED A WEAPON, THERE WAS NO PROOF DEFENDANT ACTED AS AN ACCOMPLICE IN THE CO-DEFENDANT’S POSSESSION OF A WEAPON; DEFENDANT’S CONVICTION OF CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON UNDER AN ACCOMPLICE THEORY WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (THIRD DEPT).
Sentencing Court’s Reference to a Fine for Driving While Intoxicated as “Mandatory” Required Remittal for Resentencing

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NEWSPAPER DELIVERY CARRIERS ARE EMPLOYEES ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE... DEFENDANT’S SUBCONTRACTOR USED A PAINT STRIPPING PRODUCT DURING AN OFFICE...