• M-63772 -M-69115 pdf format of M-63772  -M-69115

    M-62772—M-69116 (Apr. 24, 2013) – Board awarded benefits to workers at a telecommunications company during a two week strike, concluding that (1) federal labor law does not pre-empt a determination as to whether the claimants’ strike caused a stoppage of work under G.L. c. 151A, § 25(b); (2) the labor dispute constituted a strike, not a lockout; (3) the employer had the burden to prove that the strike caused a substantial curtailment of its operations; and (4) the employer failed to show that claimants’ unemployment was due to a stoppage of work within the meaning of G.L. c. 151A, § 25(b).  [Note: The Employer has appealed the Board of Review’s Decision to the District Court.]

  • M-63500 – M-63768 pdf format of M-63500 – M-63768

    M-63500 – M-63768 (Aug. 23, 2012) - Board denied benefits to claimants during the first 8 weeks of an 18-week strike at the employer’s refrigerated grocery distribution center based upon the substantial drop in the facility’s production and staffing levels compared to the periods immediately before and after the strike. In rendering its decision, the Board compared strike levels to non-strike levels during the same year rather than to non-strike levels from the prior year, because it was apparent that something other than the labor dispute reduced the demand for the employer’s products during the year of the strike. [Note: Appealed to the District Court.]

  • M-61684 – M-63251 pdf format of M-61684 – M-63251

    M-61684 – M-63251 (Dec. 11, 2008) -- Claimants engaged in a 17-day strike against an employer that provided a critical public service function.  In light of substantial disruption to the internal business operations, labor dispute held to be a work stoppage. 

  • M-61677 – M-61683 pdf format of M-61677 – M-61683

    M-61677 – M-61683 (Mar. 1, 2006) -- Two-month strike against regional transit bus company was a work stoppage, as the buses stopped running and no revenue came in.  When the prior collective bargaining contract expired, the employer's unilateral change of terms of employment was not a lockout, because employment remained available.