(a) An individual shall not be entitled to benefits if he or she became unemployed because
of a strike or other industrial controversy in the establishment in which he or she
was employed. This section shall not apply if it is shown to the satisfaction of the
director that the claimant is not a member of the organization or group responsible
for the labor dispute and is not participating in or financing or in any way directly
interested in the labor dispute.
(b) Lockouts. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), an individual shall be entitled
to benefits if his or her unemployment is the result of his or her employer’s withholding
of employment for the purpose of resisting collective bargaining demands or gaining
collective bargaining concessions, unless:
(1) The claimant’s employer is a member of a multi-employer collective bargaining group
and the lockout is in response to a strike at another member of that multi-employer
collective bargaining group; or
(2) The claimant’s employer establishes to the satisfaction of the director that it has
offered to the labor organization representing the claimant an extension of then existing
wages, hours, and working conditions, including enforceable no strike and no lockout
prohibitions, for up to three (3) days and the lockout is in response to the labor
organization’s refusal to execute the extension.
(c) If the unemployment continues more than one week following the conclusion of a labor
dispute, an individual who is otherwise eligible under the terms of this chapter shall
be entitled to benefits.
Notes of Decisions
Fontaine v. Bd. of Review of Dep't of Emp. Sec., 210 A.2d 867 (R.I. 1965).
· cites it 9× “At the hearing before the board, claimants contended that the facts established a strike or other labor controversy within the meaning of §28-44-16 and that therefore they were subject to the penalty period therein prescribed.”
Newman-Crosby Steel, Inc. v. Fascio, 423 A.2d 1162 (R.I. 1980).
· cites it 4× “” He also concluded that even if the board was correct in its conclusion that the work stoppage was a lockout, the six-week waiting period specified in § 28-44-16 would still be applicable because a lockout is in fact an “industrial controversy” within the meaning of § 28-44-16.”
Ranone v. Dept. of Emp. Sec., Bd. of Rev., 474 A.2d 748 (R.I. 1984).
· cites it 6× “On appeal the following issues are presented to the court: (1) whether plaintiffs are entitled to unemployment-compensation benefits pursuant to the provisions of § 28-44-16; (2) whether the Department of Employment Security had jurisdiction to make a finding of misconduct; and…”
Grinnell Corp. v. Hackett, 344 F. Supp. 749 (D.R.I. 1972).
· cites it 2× “G.L. § 28-44-16. Following expiration of their collective bargaining agreement and of several months of negotiations, the 585 employees of the plaintiff, Grinnell Corporation at the Cranston, R.”
Almacs, Inc. v. Hackett, 312 F. Supp. 964 (D.R.I. 1970).
“§ 28-44-16, G.L.R.I.1956, as amended. Pursuant to this statutory provision, no benefits currently are being paid to Almacs employees.”
Grinnell Corp. v. Hackett, 475 F.2d 449 (1st Cir. 1973).
· cites it 2× “G.L. § 28-44-16. On May 15, plaintiff filed the complaint in this case, seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction against the defendants Hackett and Affleck, who are the directors, respectively, of the Departments of Employment Security and Social and Rehabilitation…”
Annese v. Bd. of Review of the Dep't of Emp. Sec., 249 A.2d 46 (R.I. 1969).
“The statute upon which the board relied, §28-44-16, provides that an employee shall not be entitled to benefits until after the expiration of a penalty period if he became unemployed because of a strike or other industrial controversy in the establishment in which he was…”
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-44-16(b) — 1 case
— R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-44-16(b)(2) — 1 case
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.