futility doctrine in Pennsylvania

1993In Irvin Unemployment Compensation Case, 198 Pa.Superior Ct. 308, 181 A.2d 854 (1962), the employees had returned to work under an old contract and were prepared to make a extension of that work situation when the employer flatly stated that there would be no further extension of the old collective bargaining agreement and that work could continue only on his terms.

1993In Irvin Unemployment Compensation Case, 198 Pa.Superior Ct. 308, 181 A.2d 854 (1962), the employees had returned to work under an old contract and were prepared to make a extension of that work situation when the employer flatly stated that there would be no further extension of the old collective bargaining agreement and that work could continue only on his terms.

2012The Court reasoned that the condition precedent to an application of the futility standard was a plan of rehabilitation, noting that “[o]nly with the filing of a plan, even in the most preliminary form, is it possible to track progress and establish the plan’s viability or its futility.” Id. at 1245 .

2003Intervenors quote from Odgers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 89 Pa.Cmwlth. 439, 455 , 492 A.2d 808, 817 (1985), aff'd, 514 Pa. 378 , 525 A.2d 359 (1987), regarding the futility exception: ‘Where employees are confronted with no alternative but returning to work under a unilaterally imposed contract which upsets the existing status quo, there is no duty on them to make an offer to return to work under that status quo.” As for Schott Glass’ claims that it continued Blue Cross/Blue Shield coverage past the expiration of the contract, Inter-venors point to Frankel’s testimony noted

2003Intervenors quote from Odgers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 89 Pa.Cmwlth. 439, 455 , 492 A.2d 808, 817 (1985), aff'd, 514 Pa. 378 , 525 A.2d 359 (1987), regarding the futility exception: ‘Where employees are confronted with no alternative but returning to work under a unilaterally imposed contract which upsets the existing status quo, there is no duty on them to make an offer to return to work under that status quo.” As for Schott Glass’ claims that it continued Blue Cross/Blue Shield coverage past the expiration of the contract, Inter-venors point to Frankel’s testimony noted

2000The court, therefore, rejected Appellant’s assertion of the futility exception to the rule of comity, stating: “[Ujnless a state court decision exists indicating that a habeas petitioner is clearly precluded from state court relief, the federal habeas claim should be dismissed for non-exhaustion, even if it appears unlikely that the state will address the merits of the petitioner’s claim.” Id. at 519 (citing Banks v. Horn, 126 F.3d 206 (3d Cir.1997)). ¶ 14 The court of appeals further discussed Appellant’s options under Pennsylvania law to qualify for relief under the PCRA.

2000Id. at 520 (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2)(f), (ii) and (vi)).

1998Kimble, supra. Here, the December 19, 1991 letter indicated that Appellee could obtain further review if she submitted “what was asked for previously” -within thirty days.

1993Because the proper inquiry in determining the cause of unemployment must be confined to the immediate cause of unemployment, Acme Corrugated Box Company, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 131 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 251, 570 A.2d 100 (1990) (en banc) (Acme II), the critical question in this case where the employees initiated the work stoppage is whether any later action by either party changed the immediate cause of unemployment so as to make invocation of the futility doctrine proper.

1993Because the proper inquiry in determining the cause of unemployment must be confined to the immediate cause of unemployment, Acme Corrugated Box Company, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 131 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 251, 570 A.2d 100 (1990) (en banc) ( Acme II ), the critical question in this case where the employees initiated the work stoppage is whether any later action by either party changed the immediate cause of unemployment so as to make invocation of the futility doctrine proper. *445 Our courts have been loathe to apply the futility doctrine unless it is clear that the em

1992For instance, in Grimm v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 127 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 368, 376, 561 A.2d 1286, 1289 (1989), this Court stated that “[a] hard bargaining position, taken by either party, cannot by itself support an invocation of the futility doctrine.” However, there is a closer parallel in Effort Foundry, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 125 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 505 , 558 A.2d 571 (1989), in which the union offered to take a proposal back to its membership that the contract be extended for as little as a three-month period to allow for continued negotiat

1992For instance, in Grimm v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 127 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 368, 376, 561 A.2d 1286, 1289 (1989), this Court stated that “[a] hard bargaining position, taken by either party, cannot by itself support an invocation of the futility doctrine.” However, there is a closer parallel in Effort Foundry, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 125 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 505 , 558 A.2d 571 (1989), in which the union offered to take a proposal back to its membership that the contract be extended for as little as a three-month period to allow for continued negotiat

1989This Court held that the futility doctrine did not apply in Wallace v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 65 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 643, 444 A.2d 186 (1982).

1989This Court held that the futility doctrine did not apply in Wallace v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 65 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 643, 444 A.2d 186 (1982).

1917However, if this be the wrong view to take of the facts, it is sufficient for this case to refer to Bredin’s App., 92 Pa. 241 , and Allebach v. Hunsicker, 132 Pa. 349 , to demonstrate the futility of such defense, in contending that the contract was illegal and void as a gambling or void one.

1917However, if this be the wrong view to take of the facts, it is sufficient for this case to refer to Bredin’s App., 92 Pa. 241 , and Allebach v. Hunsicker, 132 Pa. 349 , to demonstrate the futility of such defense, in contending that the contract was illegal and void as a gambling or void one.