Opinion

Warner Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

  • 186 Pa. Super. 186
  • 142 A.2d 739
Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Apr 16, 1958
Status
Published
Author
Woodside
On the bench
Ervin, Gunther, Hirt, Rhodes, Watkins, Woodside, Wright
Cited by
4 cases

Reversed by Warner Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 396 Pa. 545 (1959)

The opinion

Dissenting Opinion by

Woodside, J.:

I cannot agree with the majority in this case.

The claimant, in the words of the majority, “desired to remain in service but the Company would not consent.” There was nothing in the collective bargaining agreement or elsewhere to prevent the claimant from continuing his employment except the refusal of his employer to continue to employ him. I do not understand how claimant’s retirement can be considered “voluntary in the legal sense”, or in any other sense. In my opinion when an employe is willing and able to continue his employment and his employer, in the exercise of discretion, refuses him the right to do so because of his age, the retirement is involuntary, and the employe is entitled to unemployment compensation. I would affirm the decision of the board.

Ervin, J., joins in this dissent.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.