Certiorari to review a decision of the representative of the commissioner of the Department of Manpower Services holding that claimants were partially disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.
On and prior to June 12, 1972, all of the claimants were employed by National Valve and Manufacturing Company as pipefitters and were engaged in the construction of a Northern States Power Company nuclear power plant on Prairie Island near Red Wing, Minnesota. All of the claimants were members of Pipefitters Union, Local No. 455. On June 12, 1972, the Ironworkers Union, another union whose members were involved in the construction project, went on strike against Northern States Power Company, the general contractor, and pickets were placed at the construction site. The ironworkers’ strike was not against National Valve and Manufacturing Company, the employer, and neither the claimants nor their union participated in the strike. The employer had work for the claimants to perform that did not involve the ironworkers and none of the employees’ supervisors in charge at the work site advised the claimants that no work was available. On June 12, 1972, the claimants reported to the construction site intending to go to work. However, the site was picketed and none of the claimants went through the picket line.
On and after June 12, 1972, individual claimants filed claims for unemployment compensation benefits. The department submitted to claimants a form headed “Information from Workers Involved in a Mass Unemployment Issue.” One of the questions appearing on this form was, “Exactly what happened that caused YOU to stop work?” *523The answers filed make clear that claimants were out of work simply because they refused to cross a picket line.1
In spite of these answers, claimants contend that it would have been fruitless to cross the picket lines because the gates were locked. However, the representative of the commissioner found that none of the claimants reported for available work. In any event, there was no “lockout.” Minn. St. 179.01, subd. 9, defines lockout as “the refusal of the employer to furnish work to employees as a result of a labor dispute.” In this case, no labor dispute existed between claimants and their employer, and the employer did not tell the claimants not to come to work; thus there was no “lockout” as that word is used in Minn. St. 1971, § 268.09, subd. 1(5),2 providing that an individual is disqualified for benefits:
“If such individual has left or partially or totally lost his employment with an employer because of a strike or other labor dispute. Such disqualification shall prevail for each week during which such strike or other labor dispute is in progress at the establishment in which he is or was employed, except that this disqualification shall not act to deny any individual the right to benefits based on employment subsequent to his separation because of a strike or other labor dispute if such individual has in writing notified the employer involved in such strike or other labor dispute of his resignation and acceptance of his resignation and acceptance of other bona fide employment and provided further that such resignation is accepted by all parties to the strike or other labor dispute so that such individual is no longer considered an employee of such employer. For the purpose of this section the term ‘labor dispute’ shall have the same definition as provided in the Minne*524sota labor relations act. Nothing in this subdivision shall be deemed to deny benefits to any employee who becomes unemployed because of a lockout or by dismissal during the period of negotiation in any labor dispute and prior to the commencement of a strike.”
The commissioner’s finding that the claimants did not report for available work obviously was based on their refusal to cross the picket line. In the light of their written reasons for not working, we cannot say that the finding and decision of the commissioner is unsupported by substantial evidence.
Certain benefits were awarded to claimants by the appeal tribunal. The employer appealed from that decision to the commissioner, who decided:
“On June 12, 1972, the claimants voluntarily discontinued their employment without good cause attributable to the employer; they are disqualified for benefits for five weeks of unemployment in addition to the waiting period; their maximum benefit amount is reduced by two times their weekly benefit amount and benefits paid, if any, to the claimants shall not be charged to the employer’s experience rating account.”
The only issue presented here is: Did the claimants voluntarily and without good cause attributable to the employer discontinue their employment with the employer?
The claimants are admittedly entitled to unemployment benefits unless they are disqualified under Minn. St. 1971, § 268.09, subd. 1, which provides in part:
“An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:
(1) If such individual voluntarily and without good cause attributable to the employer discontinued his employment with such employer * * *, for not less than five nor more than eight weeks of unemployment in addition to and following the waiting period, * * * and the maximum benefit amount payable to such individual shall be reduced as follows:
* >|c s}; ‡
(b) by an amount equal to two times the weekly benefit amount, when the separation occurs because of a voluntary separation as described in this clause.”
Our scope of review is limited by the Administrative Procedure Act, Minn. St. 15.0425, which does not permit us to reverse or modify a find*525ing or decision of the commissioner unless his finding or decision is unsupported by substantial evidence.
In the instant case, the representative of the commissioner found that claimants voluntarily discontinued their employment without good cause attributable to their employer. We cannot hold that such a finding is unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted and therefore must affirm.
Affirmed.
The following are some of the answers given by the claimants: “Iron workers had the jobsite picketed”; “Strike sign; I chose not to cross the picket line”; “Pickets on the job”; “I reported to work on 6-12-72 and the jobsite was picketed so I couldn’t get to work”; “Iron workers put up banner and cannot cross the banner”; “Iron workers picketed jobsite”; “I couldn’t get onto the jobsite because of the picket”; “The iron works [sic] strike picket keeps all trades out”; “Iron workers started picketed [sic] jobsite”; “Picket line at the jobsite this morning that is June 12, 1972.” Similar statements were made by several other claimants on other forms.
The legislature amended Minn. St. 1971, § 268.09, subd. 1, in 1973, which was after these claims for unemployment compensation were filed and thus does not affect this decision.