A. An individual shall be disqualified for benefits for any week with respect to which the commission finds that his total or partial unemployment is due to a labor dispute, strike or lockout which exists at the factory, establishment or other premises at which he is or was last employed. This provision shall not apply if it is shown to the satisfaction of the commission that the individual is not participating in, financing or directly interested in the labor dispute, strike or lockout or that he does not belong to a grade or class of workers of which, immediately before the commencement of the labor dispute, strike or lockout, there were members employed at the premises at which the labor dispute, strike or lockout occurs, any of whom are participating in or financing or directly interested in the dispute, strike or lockout. In the case of separate branches of work commonly conducted as separate businesses in separate premises, each department shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be a separate factory, establishment or other premises.
B. If the commission, upon investigation, finds that the dispute, strike or lockout is caused by the failure or refusal of an employer to conform to the provisions of an agreement or contract between employer and employee, or a law of this state or of the United States pertaining to hours, wages or other conditions of work, such dispute, strike or lockout shall not render the workers ineligible for benefits.
C. Benefits paid to an individual as a result of total or partial unemployment due to a labor dispute, strike or lockout shall not be used as a factor in determining the contribution rate of employers of such individual prior to the commencement of the labor dispute, strike or lockout. Where an individual's unemployment subsequent to the termination of a labor dispute, strike or lockout is a result of the labor dispute, strike or lockout, including replacement of former employees by the employer as a legitimate tactic of or response to the labor dispute, strike or lockout, benefits paid to the individual shall not be charged to the account or used as a factor in determining the contribution rate of any base-period employer.
D. "Labor dispute" as used in this section has its ordinary meaning. The existence of a labor dispute does not depend on the existence of a strike, lockout or any other stoppage of work, nor does there have to be any actual unemployment or imminent threat of unemployment or any particular number of individuals involved, before a labor dispute exists.
Notes of Decisions
Bldg. Prods. Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 604 P.2d 1148 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 30× “2d 239 (1963), the Supreme Court described the purpose of A.R.S. § 23-777 as follows: The Statute is designed to preserve the neutrality between an employer and his *440 employees by withdrawing, irrespective of individual needs, benefits under the circumstances enumerated.”
Brobston v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 385 P.2d 239 (Ariz. 1963).
· cites it 8× “By Statute A.R.S. § 23-777, subd. A: "An individual shall be disqualified for benefits for any week with respect to which the commission finds that his total or partial unemployment is due to a labor dispute, strike or lockout which exists at the factory, establishment or other…”
Vickers v. W. Elec. Co., 339 P.2d 1033 (Ariz. 1959).
· cites it 6× “In the alternative, appellee contended that even if claimants were eligible, they were disqualified for the duration of the strike because of their participation in a labor dispute (A.R.S. § 23-777) rather than disqualified only for four weeks for voluntary quitting (A.”
Emp. Sec. Comm'n v. Acosta, 378 P.2d 929 (Ariz. 1963).
· cites it 2× “*122 The Commission decided that claimants were disqualified for benefits under the provision of A.R.S. § 23-777 which in effect disqualified for any act “with respect to which the commission finds that his total or partial unemployment is due to a labor dispute.”
Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Vickers, 339 P.2d 1029 (Ariz. 1959).
· cites it 2× “Under either situation the claimants would be disqualified for benefits under Paragraph A of A.R.S. § 23-777, and would not come within the exception set forth in Paragraph B of said section.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-777(A) — 2 cases
Bldg. Prods. Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 604 P.2d 1148 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).
“2d 239 (1963), the Supreme Court described the purpose of A.R.S. § 23-777 as follows: The Statute is designed to preserve the neutrality between an employer and his *440 employees by withdrawing, irrespective of individual needs, benefits under the circumstances enumerated.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-777(B) — 2 cases
Bldg. Prods. Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 604 P.2d 1148 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).
“2d 239 (1963), the Supreme Court described the purpose of A.R.S. § 23-777 as follows: The Statute is designed to preserve the neutrality between an employer and his *440 employees by withdrawing, irrespective of individual needs, benefits under the circumstances enumerated.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-777(C) — 1 case
Bldg. Prods. Co. v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 604 P.2d 1148 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).
“2d 239 (1963), the Supreme Court described the purpose of A.R.S. § 23-777 as follows: The Statute is designed to preserve the neutrality between an employer and his *440 employees by withdrawing, irrespective of individual needs, benefits under the circumstances enumerated.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.