(1) (a) For purposes of this section:
(I) "Coordinated bargaining" means two or more employers bargaining with a union where there is communication and accommodation among the employers but where each is free to make independent decisions on some or all of the issues being negotiated with the union, either written notification of the intent to engage in coordinated bargaining has been provided to the union or the union has rejected an offer to engage in multiemployer bargaining, and one or more representatives of each employer participating in the coordinated bargaining is present at one or more bargaining sessions.
(II) "Defensive lockout" means a lockout:
(A) Reasonably imposed by an employer to protect materials, property, or operations; or
(B) Where a union or two or more employees that are represented by the union take economic action against an employer and that action causes the employer to lock out; or
(C) By any member of a multiemployer bargaining unit or an employer engaged in coordinated bargaining with one or more other employers if such lockout is initiated because of a strike or labor dispute involving any member of such multiemployer bargaining unit or coordinated bargaining group.
(III) "Lockout" means a refusal by an employer engaged in a dispute with a union to permit its employees to perform employment services.
(IV) "Multiemployer bargaining unit" means any group of two or more employers bargaining with a union as a single unit with the consent of each employer and the union.
(V) "Offensive lockout" means any lockout by an employer that does not satisfy the definition of a defensive lockout.
(VI) "Strike or labor dispute" means the withholding of employment services or other economic action by two or more employees that are represented by the union directed at an employer's business.
(b) An individual is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits for any week with respect to which the division finds that his or her total or partial unemployment is due to a strike or labor dispute in the factory, establishment, or other premises in which he or she was employed and thereafter for such reasonable period of time, if any, as may be necessary for such factory, establishment, or other premises to resume normal operations.
(c) For the purposes of this section, a lockout by any member of a multiemployer bargaining unit or an employer engaged in coordinated bargaining with another employer shall constitute a labor dispute if such lockout was a defensive lockout. In accordance with paragraph (b) of this subsection (1), the employees laid off in such a defensive lockout are ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits.
(d) However, notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this subsection (1), if his or her unemployment is due to an offensive lockout initiated by the employer, the individual will be determined eligible for unemployment compensation benefits.
(2) This section shall not apply if he is not participating in or financing or directly interested in the strike as an individual or as a member of the grade or class of workers conducting the strike. Participating in a strike shall include refusal to cross the picket line.
(3) If in any case separate branches of work which are commonly conducted as separate businesses in separate premises are conducted in separate departments of the same premises, each such department, for the purposes of this section, shall be deemed to be a separate factory, establishment, or other premises.
Source: L. 36, 3rd Ex. Sess.: p. 19, § 5. CSA: C. 167A, § 5. L. 41: p. 766, § 5. L. 49: p. 722, § 3. L. 53: p. 624, § 5. CRS 53: § 82-4-11. L. 63: p. 678, § 5. C.R.S. 1963: § 82-4-9. L. 75:
(2) R&RE, p. 323, § 1, effective June 29. L. 99: (1) amended, p. 682, § 1, effective May 19.
Notes of Decisions
Federico v. Brannan Sand & Gravel Co., 788 P.2d 1268 (Colo. 1990).
· cites it 16× “The Employment Security Act, title 8, articles 70 to 82 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, was enacted to protect workers who become unemployed through no fault of their own from financial hardship.”
Brannan Sand & Gravel Co. v. Indus. Claim Appeals, 762 P.2d 771 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 9× “The Panel determined that claimants were ineligible for benefits from July 3, 1985, to July 20, 1985, in that they were unemployed because of a strike pursuant to § 8-73-109, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B). These segments of the orders have not been appealed.”
Claim of Krantz v. Kelran Constructors, Inc., 669 P.2d 1049 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 5× “2d 402 (1976), we stated that a strike or labor dispute suspends the employer-employee relationship, and § 8-73-109 excludes coverage for periods of unemployment attributable to the dispute.”
Pierce v. Indus. Comm'n, 553 P.2d 402 (Colo. Ct. App. 1976).
· cites it 4× “The Industrial Commission, affirming the referees' decisions, denied claimants' benefits, pursuant to § 8-73-109, C.R.S. 1973, for the period of their active participation in the strike (October 4, 1973, to April 6, 1974).”
Safeway Stores 44 Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 973 P.2d 677 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 9× “Aggus and other similarly-situated Safeway employees (claimants) are eligible to receive unemployment benefits under § 8-73-109(1), C.R.S.1997. We affirm. The claimants are employees of Safeway and members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local #7 (Union).”
F. R. Orr Constr. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 534 P.2d 785 (Colo. 1975).
· cites it 3× “Suffice it to say, the conclusion that the unemployment of the claimants was involuntary within the meaning of the Colorado Employment Security Act is warranted by the *184 record, and payment of unemployment benefits is in furtherance of the legislative declaration of public…”
Lamb v. Indus. Comm'n, 662 P.2d 191 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 7× “Section 8-73-109(1), C.R.S.1973, provides that a claimant is not entitled to benefits for any period of unemployment attributable to a “strike or labor dispute” on the premises where the worker is employed.”
Abbott v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 796 P.2d 60 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 5× “Accordingly, the hearing officer concluded that claimants were precluded from receiving unemployment compensation benefits by § 8-73-109(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B).”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-109(1) — 5 cases
Claim of Krantz v. Kelran Constructors, Inc., 669 P.2d 1049 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
“2d 402 (1976), we stated that a strike or labor dispute suspends the employer-employee relationship, and § 8-73-109 excludes coverage for periods of unemployment attributable to the dispute.”
Safeway Stores 44 Inc. v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 973 P.2d 677 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
“Aggus and other similarly-situated Safeway employees (claimants) are eligible to receive unemployment benefits under § 8-73-109(1), C.R.S.1997. We affirm. The claimants are employees of Safeway and members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local #7 (Union).”
Brannan Sand & Gravel Co. v. Indus. Claim Appeals, 762 P.2d 771 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
“The Panel determined that claimants were ineligible for benefits from July 3, 1985, to July 20, 1985, in that they were unemployed because of a strike pursuant to § 8-73-109, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B). These segments of the orders have not been appealed.”
Abbott v. Indus. Claim Appeals Off., 796 P.2d 60 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).
“Accordingly, the hearing officer concluded that claimants were precluded from receiving unemployment compensation benefits by § 8-73-109(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 3B).”
Lamb v. Indus. Comm'n, 662 P.2d 191 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
“Section 8-73-109(1), C.R.S.1973, provides that a claimant is not entitled to benefits for any period of unemployment attributable to a “strike or labor dispute” on the premises where the worker is employed.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-73-109(2) — 1 case
Lamb v. Indus. Comm'n, 662 P.2d 191 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
“Section 8-73-109(1), C.R.S.1973, provides that a claimant is not entitled to benefits for any period of unemployment attributable to a “strike or labor dispute” on the premises where the worker is employed.”
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.