Matter of Rodriguez

4 Citing cases

  1. Ranone v. Department of Employment Security

    474 A.2d 748 (R.I. 1984)   Cited 4 times
    In Ranone v. Board of Review (1984), 474 A.2d 748, 116 LRRM 2134, 2136-37, the Rhode Island court considered whether PATCO members, discharged from federal employment for engaging in the same illegal strike of August 3, 1981, were ineligible for unemployment compensation.

    Section 593(3) provides for the denial of benefits when an individual loses his employment because of misconduct related to his work. The New York court, however, subsequently held that in situations where the Legislature has specifically prohibited strikes or other concerted activity, an employee's violation of that proscription constitutes misconduct as a matter of law. Rodriguez v. Presbyterian Hospital of New York, 32 N.Y.2d 577, 582, 300 N.E.2d 418, 420, 347 N.Y.S.2d 43, 45 (1973). In Rodriguez, a hospital employee participated in a strike that had been expressly declared unlawful by statute because of the need to protect the public from the disruption of essential services in the area of health and hospital administration.

  2. Federal Aviation Adm. v. Dept. of Labor and Industry

    685 P.2d 365 (Mont. 1984)   Cited 2 times

    However, the New York court subsequently held that in situations where the Legislature has specifically prohibited strikes or other concerted activity, an employee's violation of that proscription constitutes misconduct as a matter of law. Rodriguez v. Presbyterian Hospital (1973), 347 N.Y.S.2d 43, 46, 32 N.Y.2d 577, 582, 300 N.E.2d 418, 420. In Rodriguez, a hospital employee participated in a strike that had been expressly declared unlawful by statute because of the need to protect the public from the disruption of essential services in the area of health and hospital administration.

  3. Matter of Paladino

    93 A.D.2d 909 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)   Cited 1 times

    There the court was concerned with the effect of a strike in violation of a private collective bargaining agreement. Here, we are concerned with a strike in violation of Federal statute. It would be incongruous to allow one who has been discharged from employment for engaging in statutorily prohibited action to receive the benefits of another legislative enactment (see Matter of Rodriguez [ Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. — Levine], 32 N.Y.2d 577). Thus, on this issue the board properly determined claimants' action to be misconduct within the meaning of subdivision 3 of section 593 Lab. of the Labor Law and its decision in this regard should be affirmed.

  4. Sadallah

    53 A.D.2d 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)   Cited 1 times

    Section 157 provides that "the failure or refusal of either party to submit a controversy to arbitration should not be construed as a violation of any legal obligation imposed upon such party by the terms of this chapter or otherwise". It was noted in Railway Clerks v Florida East Coast Ry. Co. ( 384 U.S. 238, 241) that arbitration is not mandatory and a union is free to strike without submitting to arbitration. The employer has failed to establish that the strike was illegal so as to bar the claimants from benefits pursuant to the rationale of Matter of Rodriquez (Presbyt. Hosp. in City of N Y — Levine), 32 N.Y.2d 577; cf. Matter of Heitzenrater (Hooker Chem. Corp. — Catherwood), 19 N.Y.2d 1). The second contention of the employer as to the payment of benefits being an interference with a federally pre-empted area is not persuasive. Payments to workers in establishments undergoing a labor controversy do not commence for several weeks after the controversy causes the unemployment to occur.