# Department of Labor & Industry, Bureau of Employment Security v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · June 11, 1964 · 203 Pa. Super. 336

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6284332

## Case

- **Full name:** Lybarger Unemployment Compensation Case. Department of Labor and Industry, Bureau of Employment Security v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 11, 1964
- **Citations:** 203 Pa. Super. 336; 201 A.2d 310
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wright
- **Judges:** Ervin, Flood, Montgomery, Rhodes, Watkins, Woodside, Wright
- **Cited by:** 16 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/6284332

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Wright, J.:
It is my view that this case is ruled by the decision of our Supreme Court in Gianfelice Unemployment Compensation Case, 396 Pa. 545 , 153 A. 2d 906 . The record reveals that the work-sharing technique under consideration was proposed by the employer, not by the union. The employer’s Director of Industrial Relations admitted that claimants desired to continue working. “They asked if they could not return to work. We laid them off and they were told they could not”. Moreover, it clearly appears that claimants were available for suitable work. Claimant Lybarger *347 testified as follows: “Q. If you had been offered full-time work would you have accepted it? A. I certainly would”. The factual matrix at the time of separation plainly demonstrates that claimants may not be disqualified either under Section 402(b) (1) or under Section 401(d).
Montgomery and Flood, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6284332. Public record. Not legal advice.