# Commonwealth v. Independent State Stores Union

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · February 6, 1989 · 520 Pa. 266

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6264147

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD v. INDEPENDENT STATE STORES UNION
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** February 6, 1989
- **Citations:** 520 Pa. 266; 553 A.2d 948; 130 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2780; 1989 Pa. LEXIS 9
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Papadakos
- **Judges:** Files, Flaherty, Larsen, McDermott, Nix, Papadakos, Stout, Zappala
- **Cited by:** 66 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6264147

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that where the submitted question asked whether the grievant was dismissed for just cause and if not what should the remedy be, the arbitrator should have ended his inquiry after finding just cause
- holding that the Liquor Control Board had just cause to discharge an employee who falsified records and misappropriated funds
- holding that the Liquor Control Board did not bargain away its right to discharge an employee who falsified records
- holding that the arbitrator could not modify the LCB’s termination of an employee for theft of Commonwealth funds

## Opinion text

PAPADAKOS, Justice,
concurring.
I join in the opinion of the majority but write separately to express my view that the concept of “good cause” must be limited by an element of justification or excusability. I do not believe that the mere happening of misconduct, in itself, closes the inquiry and mandates “discharge for good cause.” I believe an employee has the right to explain away the dereliction. Surely, an employee who suffers amnesia and wanders away from family, friends and acquaintances for several months and thereby fails to report to work for an extended period of time should be able to prove this circumstance and thus avoid “discharge for good cause.” In this case, McCardle was given the opportunity to explain away the dereliction and failed to do so. Under these circumstances, I can agree that the Liquor Control Board had “just cause” for the firing of McCardle and the inquiry should have ended there.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6264147. Public record. Not legal advice.