curtailment” of operations at each of these premises to cause a “stoppage of work.” Respondent Teamsters Local 639 argues that the various distribution and warehouse centers and manufacturing plants were not their place of “last employment.” We disagree because those facilities were their centralized place of employment. The truckers admit in their brief that each trucker reports for work at one of these facilities, loads his or her truck there, departs from the individual site prior to servicing petitioner’s many stores, and then returns to the site at the end of his or her working day. We note that courts in our sister states, posed with similar arguments, have made the same conclusion. See Noblit v. Marmon Group—Midwest Foundry Div., 25 Mich.App. 432, 437, 181 N.W.2d 593, 595 (1970) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 386 Mich. 652, 194 N.W.2d 324 (1972);
holding that pilots based out of a las vegas airport were last employed at that location holding that truck drivers who picked up items from a foundry and returned there at the end of the day were last employed there holding that a drivers knowledge that there are concealable weapons in the car available for the drivers use is evidence of possession holding inter alia that newspaper employees who operated in the field but took orders from the new york city office attended meetings there and were paid there were employed there holding that a truck drivers injury from a fall in the shower of a truck stop while off duty was not compensable