The Labor Dispute Disqualification -- A Primer and Some Problems
Williams, Jerre S.
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this journal article
Most recently cited by10
- 1987Abilla v. Agsalud Haw.
- 1985Odgers v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review Pa. Commw. Ct.
- 1983Reed National Corp. v. Director of the Division of Employment Security Mass.
- 1978Eastern Washington & Northern Idaho Building & Construction Trades Council v. Department of Employment Security Wash. Ct. App.
- 1977Employees of Pacific Maritime Ass'n v. Hutt Wash.
- 1976De Leeuw v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations Wis.
- 1968Meadow Gold Dairies-Hawaii, Ltd. v. Wiig Haw.
- 1966In re the Claim of Heitzenrater N.Y.
- 1965General Electric Co. v. Director of the Division of Employment Security Mass.
- 1965Sweeney v. Board of Review, Division of Employment Security N.J.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
Particularly in the last five years there has been a substantial maturing of the labor dispute disqualification of the various state unemployment compensation statutes. The unpredictable and vacillating administrative decision has given way to more authoritative court decision. In turn, the nonconforming court decision has tended to disappear as clear majority interpretations of the various questions arising under the disqualification begin to develop. Further, and perhaps most significantly, a number of states which have experimented with various nonconforming types of labor dispute disqualification provisions have tended to abandon these experiments and return to the more conventional pattern.
Hence, with regard to most of the questions arising under the labor dispute disqualification, generally accepted answers are emerging--answers which do not vary across jurisdictional lines. There has been scholarly exploration with respect to all questions in the labor dispute disqualification. The various ramifications have been evaluated in inquiring and thorough detail.' It now appears to be time for a primer, and the first part of this article is so designed. Yet it is highly inaccurate to state that the possibility of change in the labor dispute disqualification has disappeared.
Some problems it raises continue to invade areas of sensitive concern both to employers and to employees. The second portion of this article will be directed at exploring some of those more sensitive areas.