Opinion

Tronzo v. COM., UNEMPLOYMENT COMP. BD.

  • 514 Pa. 24
  • 522 A.2d 544
  • 1987 Pa. LEXIS 638
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Mar 17, 1987
Status
Published
Author
Hutchinson
On the bench
Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala, Papadakos
Cited by
2 cases

The opinion

HUTCHINSON, Justice,

dissenting.

I dissent. By quoting only part of section 402(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law I believe that the majority has overlooked the statute’s critical language. Section 402(d) states:

[a]n employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week—

(d) In which his unemployment is due to a stoppage of work, which exists because of a labor dispute (other than *32 a lock-out) at the factory, establishment or other premises at which he is or was last employed: Provided, That this subsection shall not apply if it is shown that (1) he is not participating in, or directly interested in, the labor dispute which caused the stoppage of work, and (2) he is not a member of an organization which is participating in, or directly interested in, the labor dispute which caused the stoppage of work, and (3) he does not belong to a grade or class of workers of which, immediately before the commencement of the stoppage, there were members employed at the premises at which the stoppage occurs, any of whom are participating in, or directly interested in, the dispute.

43 P.S. § 802(d) (emphasis added). Appellees participated in the strike which caused the stoppage of work and were members of the union which was on strike. To my mind they are clearly ineligible for benefits.

McDERMOTT, J., joins in this Dissenting Opinion.

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.