Summary

Unemployment Compensation Commission of Alaska v…

Companies engaged in carrying on a seasonal business were ranged against a union representing seasonal workers who had been employed by the companies in the previous year. Dispute there certainly was; and the subject of that dispute consisted of matters usually contested in labor disputes as that term is normally understood. [12] Since we find nothing to indicate that the Territorial Legislature intended a contrary result, we conclude that the Commission might properly find a 'labor dispute' here presented within the meaning of § 5 (d) of the Alaska Act.
Source: Wikisource

Unemployment Compensation Commission of Alaska v…

Catching and canning salmon is a seasonal activity. [3] The companies customarily hire workers at San Francisco at the beginning of the season, transport them to the Alaskan establishments, and return them to San Francisco at the season's end. Similar operations are carried on by other companies out of other west coast ports, notably Seattle and Portland. The individual respondents are all members of the Alaska Cannery Workers Union Local No. 5, and each worked in Alaska for one of the three companies during the 1939 season.
Source: Wikisource

Unemployment Compensation Commission of Alaska v…

The Referee found that these companies negotiated in good faith and failed to operate in Alaska during the 1940 season only because of their inability to negotiate satisfactory labor agreements before the passing of the deadline dates. There is evidence that the Alaska Packers Association expected to hire about two-thirds the number of workers in 1940 it had employed in 1939.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature