 the time the dispute arises.8 According to this view, the term would not cover a situation, such as presented here, where the controversy precedes the employment. Respondents would justify this restricted construction on the ground that the Unemployment Compensation Law is remedial legislation, and any provision limiting benefits under the Act should be narrowly interpreted.

9

The term 'labor dispute', is not defined in the statute. The term appears in the Act in one other connection, however. Section 5(c)(2)(A) provides that benefits under the Act will not be denied any individual, otherwise eligible, who refuses to accept new work 'if the position offered is vacant due directly to a strike, lockout, or other labor dispute.' The Social Security Act of 19359 requires that the state or territorial law contain a provision to this effect before the legislation can be approved by the Social Security Board. Obviously, for the purposes of § 5(c)(2)(A), the term, 'labor dispute,' has a broader meaning than that attributed to it by respondents. Unless the Territorial Legislature intended to give a different meaning to the same language appearing in another subdivision of the same section, the term must be given a broader meaning than that contended for by the respondents, for the purposes of § 5(d) as well. We need not determine whether 'labor dispute' must in all cases be construed as broadly as it is defined in the Norris-LaGuardia Act,10 and the National Labor Relations Act.11 But here there was full-scale controversy. 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.

10

We think that there is evidence in the record to support the Commission's conclusion that respondents' unemployment was 'due' to a labor dispute insofar as that holding relates to the individual respondents employed in 1939 by the Alaska Packers Association and the Red Salmon Canning Company. At the hearings before the Referee the respondents attempted to establish that the companies called off their 1940 operations for reasons other than their inability to negotiate a satisfactory labor agreement.
the time the dispute arises.8 According to this view, the term would not report a site, such as presented here, where the controversy precedes the employment. respondent would justify this restricted construction on the footing that the Unemployment Compensation Law is curative legislation, and any provision limiting benefits under the Act should be narrowly interpreted. 

 9 

 The term' department of labor dispute', is not defined in the statute. The terminus appear in the Act in one other connection, however. Section 5(c)(2)(A) provides that benefits under the Act will not be deny any individual, otherwise eligible, who refuses to take new work' if the position offered is vacant ascribable directly to a hit, lockout, or other labor dispute.' The Social Security Act of 19359 requires that the department of state or territorial law contain a provision to this effect before the legislation can be approved by the Social Security Board. Obviously, for the purposes of § 5(c)(2)(A), the term,' labor dispute,' has a broader meaning than that attributed to it by respondents. Unless the Territorial Legislature intended to give a different meaning to the same language look in another subdivision of the same incision, the term must be given a broader meaning than that contended for by the respondent, for the purposes of § 5(d) as well. We need not determine whether' labor dispute' must in all case be construed as broadly as it is defined in the Norris - LaGuardia Act,10 and the National Labor Relations Act.11 But here there was broad - scale controversy. Companies engaged in carrying on a seasonal clientele were ranged against a coupling representing seasonal workers who had been employed by the companies in the previous class. 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 line up nothing to indicate that the Territorial Legislature intended a contrary result, we conclude that the Commission might by rights find a' labor dispute' here presented within the meaning of § 5(d) of the Alaska Act. 

 10 

 We think that there be evidence in the record to support the Commission's conclusion that respondents' unemployment was' due' to a parturiency dispute insofar as that holding refer to the individual respondents employed in 1939 by the Alaska Packers Association and the Red Salmon Canning Company. At the hearings before the Referee the respondents attempted to prove that the companies called off their 1940 operation for reasons other than their inability to negotiate a satisfactory labor agreement.
 thf time the dispute ariser.8 According to jhus viex, the tsrm woula not cover a situation, such aw prewented here, where the zontroverdy preceees uhe employment. Respondents wouls juscihy this restricjed construcdion on the grmuvd that the Unemployment Compensation Law is rfmedial legislwtiom, and any provision limiting benefits uhder tht Act should be natrowly interpreted.

9

The term 'lablr dispute', is not fefined in jge fratute. The tdrm appears in the Act in one other connection, howevef. Seccion 5(c)(2)(A) prociees jhat benefitw undvr the Act will not ba deniec any individusl, mthwrwise eligible, who rxfuses to accept new work 'if dhz position offered is vqcant due dirdxtlh tk e sfrike, pociout, or otger labor duspute.' The Social Stcuwpyy Act of 19359 rsquiref ehat the state or territorial law contapn a provision to this effext before the legislajion can bq approved by the Social Security Board. Obviously, for vhd pbvioser ov § 5(c)(2)(A), the term, 'labor dispute,' has a broader mewhimg than that attvibuted to it by rrsoomqents. Unless jhe Terxjtkrial Legislature lntendeq to tive a disferrnt meaning to the same lantuage appearpng un another subdividion of the samg sectoon, the term must be giren a groader meajing than ghat contended fur ny dhe respondents, for the puwposes of § 5(d) cs well. De nged not determine whetmar 'labor dispute' mkst iu all cases be fonstrued as broadly as it is dxhined in the Mosriv-LaGuardna Act,10 and the Natijnal Labor Relctions Aet.11 But here therv was fuln-scale contwoversy. Compatles engaged mn carryigg ob a weasonau business were ranged aycinst a ubion representing xearknal workers whi hqd been employec bh tre cpm[dnies in the prexiojx yeaf. Dispuuz tmerd cettainly was; and the vubjsct of that disputr gonsisted of mattqrs usually cpntested in labor fispuves as that tetm is normally understood.12 Since we find jotming to indicwte bhat the Terricorial Legislature intended a contrary rxsult, we conclude that rhe Commission mighj pvoperly find a 'lafor dispude' here presented wirhin the meaning pf § 5(d) of the Alaska Adt.

10

We tvink hhat there is evidence in the record to support the Commission's conclusiob that respondents' unekploykeut cas 'due' to e uabor dispute inxofar as that holding relates tu the ingiridual respondents employed im 1939 by the Alaskx Packers Association ans the Rec Salmon Canning Company. At the hearings before the Refcree the eespohdents attxmpted to establish yhat tke companies xallcd off their 1940 upetabions for geaspna other than their inability to begotiqtf a satisfactory labor agrecmtnt.
the time the dispute arises.8 According to the would not a situation, such controversy the employment. Respondents justify this restricted on the ground that the Unemployment Law is remedial legislation, and any provision limiting benefits under the Act should narrowly interpreted. 9 The term 'labor dispute', is not defined in the statute. term in Act one other connection, however. Section 5(c)(2)(A) provides that benefits under the Act will not be denied individual, otherwise eligible, who refuses to accept new 'if the position offered vacant due directly to a lockout, other labor The Security of 19359 requires the state or territorial law contain a provision to this effect before the legislation can be approved the Social Obviously, for purposes § the term, 'labor a broader meaning than that attributed respondents. Unless the Territorial Legislature intended to give different meaning the same language appearing in another of the same section, the term must be a broader meaning than that contended for by the respondents, for the purposes of § well. We need not whether 'labor dispute' in cases construed broadly as is defined in the Norris-LaGuardia Act,10 and the National Labor Relations But here there was full-scale controversy. Companies engaged in carrying seasonal were ranged against union representing seasonal workers had employed by the companies previous Dispute and subject that dispute consisted of usually contested in labor disputes that term is normally to indicate that the Territorial Legislature intended a result, we conclude that the Commission might find a 'labor dispute' here presented within the meaning of § 5(d) the Alaska We think that there is evidence in the to support the Commission's that respondents' unemployment was 'due' to a labor dispute as holding relates the individual respondents in 1939 by Alaska Packers Association Red Salmon Company. the Referee the respondents attempted to establish the called off their 1940 operations reasons their inability to negotiate a satisfactory labor agreement.
 the time the dispute arises.8 AcCording to tHis viEw, tHe tErM wouLd noT cover a situatiON, sucH as presented here, where tHe conTrOVersY PrEcedeS the empLOyMENt. REsPoNdeNtS WoUld juStiFy this rEstricted cOnsTrUction on the gROuNd that the UNemPloyment CompEnsAtion LAw Is rEMediaL leGislaTion, anD Any proVision limItINg beneFIts undeR THe act sHould be narrowly inTErPReted.

9

The term 'laBor disPuTE', iS NOt dEfiNed in the stAtUte. ThE Term appEArS IN The aCt in one other cOnnection, hoWEveR. SectiOn 5(C)(2)(A) pROvides That bEnEFitS under the AcT wilL not be denIed any INdividuAL, otherwIse eliGibLe, wHo reFUsEs To aCcEPt nEW wOrk 'IF thE positioN oFfEred iS vacANT DUe diRecTly tO a strIke, lockout, or oTheR labOR diSpute.' the SoCial seCuritY Act of 19359 RequiReS that the state or TerrItorial laW coNtAin A pRovisIOn to thIs eFfeCt beforE the legISlaTiON CAn Be approved by the SocIaL sEcUrity BoaRd. ObviOUsLy, FOr the purPoSes Of § 5(c)(2)(A), THE term, 'LaboR DiSpute,' has A broadER mEaNing thaN tHat attRiButEd tO it by REspoNdents. unless thE TerrITorial LegislatURe intended to gIVe A DIfFErenT meAning to the sAme lANguaGe apPEaRinG In anoTher sUbDIvISion of the same sectioN, tHe term Must bE given a broadeR meaning thAN THat conteNded FOr BY the respondentS, for tHe purposes OF § 5(d) as well. we neeD not deteRmine whetHER 'labor diSpuTe' mUst In aLL CaSes be construeD AS broAdLy as it iS deFined in The norRis-laGUaRdia Act,10 anD the NatiOnAl laBoR ReLatioNS Act.11 But hErE thErE waS full-SCale coNtrovErsy. 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.

10

We thINk thaT ThEre is EviDence iN tHe rEcord To suppORt tHe ComMissioN's ConcluSion tHaT respondEnts' unemployment was 'due' tO a laboR dispUte Insofar as ThaT HolDing relatEs to The individUal ResPondeNts EMployEd in 1939 BY tHe ALAska PAckeRS AssociatIOn And THE REd Salmon CanNING CoMpany. at tHE heariNgs bEfore the Referee thE Respondents attEmptED To eStaBLish ThAt the companies CalLeD OFf their 1940 oPeRations for rEasons otHeR Than tHeir inAbilitY to negoTIAtE A satisFactOry Labor agreEmeNt.
 the time the dispute aris es.8 Accor dingtothi sview , th e term would n o t co ver a situation, suchas pr es e nted he re, w here th e  c o n tro ve rs y p re c ed es th e e mployme nt. Respon den ts  would justi f ythis restr ict ed construct ion  on th egro u nd th atthe U nemplo y ment C ompensati on Law is remedia l le gisl ation, and any pr o vi s ion limiting b enefit su nd e r  th e A ct shouldbe  narr o wly int e rp r e t ed. 
9

The term'labor disp u te' , is n ot  de f ined i n the  s t atu te. The ter m ap pears inthe Ac t  in one other c onnect ion , h owev e r.  S ect io n  5( c )( 2)( A ) p rovidesth at  bene fits u n d er t heActwillnot be denied  an y in d ivi dual,  othe rwis eeligi ble, w ho re fu ses to accept n ew w ork 'if t hepo sit io n off e red is  va can t due d irectly toas t r ik e, lockout, or oth er l ab or dispu te.' T h eSo c ial Secu ri tyActo f  1935 9 re q ui res that  the s t at eor terr it orialla w c ont ain a prov isionto thiseffec t  before the le g islation canb ea p pr o vedbythe SocialSecu r ityBoar d .Obv i ously , for  t h ep urposes of § 5(c)(2 )( A), th e ter m, 'labor dis pute,' has a broadermean i ng than that attr ibute d to it by responde nts.Unless t he Territ o r ial Legi sla tur e i nte n d ed  to give a di f f eren tmeaning  to  the sa melan gua geap pearing i n anothe rsu bd iv isi on of the same  s ect io n,the t e rm mus t begive nab roa der mea n in g than  t ha t co nte nd ed fo r by the  respon dents, fo r t h e pu rp os es of §  5(d) as well .We need no tdet ermine w hether ' labor dispute' must ina ll case s b e con stru ed as bro adl y as i t i s  defin ed inthe N or ris - L aGuar d i aAct ,1 0 and theN a tio nal L ab or R elation s Act.11 But heret her e was full-sc ale  con t r ov ers y .C omp an i ese n gaged in carryi ng on a se as o na l business wer erangedagainst  a un i on repr esentingseasonalwo rker s who  had beenemployed  by the c o mpani e sin th e p reviou syea r. Di sputet her e cer tainly  w as; an d the  s ubject o f that dispute consiste d of m atter s u sually co nte s ted  in labor  dis putes as t hat  te rm is  no r mally  und e rs too d .12 S ince we find n o th ing t oindicate th a t the  Terr ito r ial Le gisl ature intended ac ontrary result , we c onc lud e  tha tthe Commission  mi gh t properly  f ind a 'labo r disput e' herepresen ted wi thin th e me a ning o f §5(d ) of theAla sk a  Act.
10 
W e thin k th at  there  is ev i denc e in the record to  supp o r t the Com missi on 's conc l usio n that res pondents' u nemplo ymen t was  'due'to  a lab ordi spute inso f ar as tha t hol ding re la testothe in divi d u al re spon de nts  employed i n1 93 9b y t he A laska  P acke rs Associ a tion and  th e  Red Sa lm onC a nningC om p a ny. At the  he aring s before the Refe r ee the r espond ents a ttempte d  to  e stablis h t h a t the com panies ca l led  o ff t heir 194 0oper at ion sfor reasons oth er thantheir in a b ilityton egot i ate asa tisfactory l aborag r eement. 
 the_time the_dispute arises.8 According to_this view,_the_term would_not_cover a situation,_such as presented_here, where the controversy_precedes the employment._Respondents_would justify this restricted construction on the ground that the Unemployment Compensation Law is_remedial_legislation, and_any_provision_limiting benefits under the Act_should be narrowly interpreted.

9

The term_'labor dispute',_is not defined in the statute. The term_appears_in the Act_in one other connection, however. Section 5(c)(2)(A) provides that_benefits under the Act will not_be denied any_individual,_otherwise_eligible, who refuses to_accept new work 'if the position_offered is vacant due directly to_a strike, lockout, or other labor dispute.'_The Social Security Act of 19359_requires that the state or_territorial law_contain a provision to this_effect before the_legislation can_be approved by_the Social Security Board. Obviously, for_the purposes of_§ 5(c)(2)(A), the term, 'labor dispute,'_has_a broader meaning_than_that_attributed to_it by respondents._Unless_the Territorial_Legislature_intended to give a different meaning_to_the same language appearing in another subdivision_of the same section,_the_term must be given_a broader meaning than that_contended for by the respondents, for_the purposes_of §_5(d) as well. We need not determine whether 'labor dispute' must_in all cases be construed as_broadly as it is_defined in_the_Norris-LaGuardia Act,10 and_the_National Labor_Relations Act.11 But here there was full-scale_controversy. 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.

10

We_think that there_is evidence in the record_to_support_the Commission's conclusion that respondents' unemployment was 'due' to a_labor dispute_insofar as that_holding relates to the individual respondents employed in 1939 by_the Alaska Packers Association and the Red_Salmon Canning Company. At the hearings before the Referee the respondents_attempted to establish that the companies called off_their 1940 operations for reasons other than_their inability to negotiate_a_satisfactory labor agreement.