Court rules strikers not entitled to jobless benefits

Thursday, Sept. 3, 2009 | 3:06 p.m.

CARSON CITY – The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that the 347 workers of Medco Health Solutions of Las Vegas were not entitled to collect unemployment benefits while they were locked out in a labor dispute.

The court backed up the board of review of the state Division of Employment Security, which ruled there should be no unemployment checks due to a labor dispute.

The employees contended Medco Health locked them out and they should be able to draw the benefits.

The court, in the unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice James Hardesty, said there was substantial evidence that the Medco lock-out was the result of failed negotiations concerning wages and medical benefits.

The law says “A person is disqualified for benefits for any week with respect to which the (state division) administrator finds that his total or partial unemployment is due to a labor dispute in active progress at the factory, establishment or other premises…”

The court said it has previously defined “labor dispute” to include any controversy concerning wages, hours, working conditions or terms of employment.

In this case, the court said a labor dispute existed regardless of whether the workers were locked out or conducted a strike.

Comments
Print
E-mail
Share
- Facebook
- Fark
- Digg
- Reddit
- Stumble
Tweet

Discussion: comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

No trusted comments have been posted.

By jsayler

Sept. 3, 2009

3:58 p.m.

Flag

Clearly, a lockout doesn't matter when a medical corporation is fuming about something. Always err on the side of unethical business practices in stead of constituents in time of desperation and need--when they need their government to work for them and not against them!
By Planetearthcalling

Sept. 3, 2009

6:13 p.m.

Flag

347 very stupid people go on strike and they want what??

They deserve to lose their homes for being to stupid to look around them and notice were in a full blown recession with unemployment running at 15 percent.
By NevadaFive

Sept. 4, 2009

8:56 p.m.

Flag

to planetearth, et al: git a edukatshun so as peoples can know whats you talkn bout.

Perhaps many of those new, "deserving" homeless workers were eager to cross the picket line - but they had been "locked out." The court and the legislature need to revisit this legal standing.
By Planetearthcalling

Sept. 5, 2009

9:05 a.m.

Flag

To NevadaZero

As I said before, the 347 incredibly stupid people should not have gone on strike to begin with you moron.

They should have been smart enough not to gamble away their livelihood on a whim when so many other people are out of work. It's the economy stupid... They are not deserving of unemployment benefits while on strike so I recommend they get in line with the deadbeats down at the welfare office.