Opinion

Penflex, Inc. v. Bryson

  • 506 Pa. 274
  • 485 A.2d 359
  • 1984 Pa. LEXIS 348
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Dec 7, 1984
Status
Published
Author
Larsen
On the bench
Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala, Papadakos
Cited by
89 cases

"To hold that participation in a strike in contravention of federal law constitutes willful misconduct under Section 402(e

How later courts described this case

  • "To hold that participation in a strike in contravention of federal law constitutes willful misconduct under Section 402(e
  • participation in work stoppage is not willful misconduct, particularly in the absence of contractual language warning employees that they could be terminated

Written by the judges who cited it.

Distinguished

  • Distinguished by Flores v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 1996 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 515 (1996)

    Initially, we must note that Claimants were dismissed for willful misconduct and not for engaging in a work stoppage or any other lawfully protected activity.33 Secondly, although Penflex is factually distinguishable and inapposite, it does provide this Court with insight on the interrelationship between Sections 402(d) and 402(e) of the Law.
    Commonwealth Court of PennsylvaniaDec 12, 1996Read it

The opinion

LARSEN, Justice,

concurring.

I agree with both the Majority Opinion and Dissenting Opinion that appellants are entitled to unemployment compensation and therefore concur in the result.

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.