"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.
The opinion
*297 ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
While I join in the legal analysis of the dissenting opinion authored by Mr. Chief Justice Nix, I disagree with him as to when the status of employer-employee terminated. My review of the record indicates that .the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review found as a fact that the employees were terminated on July 1, 1980. Therefore, I find it unnecessary to remand for that determination and concur in the result reached by the majority.